Back in September of 2012 Blaze TV aired a special program wherein Glenn Beck sought to dispel the ‘biggest Mormon myths.” I watched the first segment on YouTube where Mr. Beck answered the viewer-submitted question, “We often hear the word polygamy and Mormonism coupled together. Why?” Mr. Beck’s response was quite disappointing. Rather than dispel Mormon myths, he perpetuated them with gusto.
Brigham Young with some of his 56 wives
Mr. Beck began his response by taking a couple of minutes to mock FLDS polygamists and criticize the media, but then he got serious. Acknowledging that early Mormons did engage in polygamy, he said, “Why did they practice it?” For the following six minutes Mr. Beck laid out a story rife with historical inaccuracies and myths. Here are a few:
Mr. Beck said you can’t understand why Mormons practiced polygamy unless you know the story of the Book of Mormon and that many people died for it – “to have and to read and to share it.” (2:40) And, “In the 1800s people were dying because of the Book of Mormon.” (3:00)
This is pure conjecture; as far as I know, no such historical evidence exists. Mormons have died and continue to die, of course. But there is nothing to tie Mormon deaths directly to having, reading and sharing the Book of Mormon. Mormon persecution was not primarily about the doctrines of the faith, but rather due to politics, finances, polygamy and societal conflict.
Mr. Beck states that Mormons had been driven out of New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. (3:35)
Nope. Joseph Smith decided to leave New York for Ohio because more members of the Church lived in Ohio and it was a stronger base for Church operation. Joseph Smith decided to leave Ohio for Missouri because his failed banking venture had resulted in numerous lawsuits from bilked investors. Joseph owed more money than he could repay, so he snuck out of Kirtland under cover of night, and headed to Missouri; faithful Church members followed him. In Missouri, as Mr. Beck said, the Mormons were forced to leave and found temporary peace in Nauvoo, Illinois. A few years later, with Brigham Young now leading the Church, the Mormons agreed to leave the state after continuing conflicts between Mormons and non-Mormons. However, according to Brigham, they already had plans in place to move west – plans they had made before any “recent disturbances” with the non-Mormons of the area.
Mr. Beck talked about the Missouri “Extermination Order” which, according to Beck, “ordered that all Mormons should be exterminated – killed – you were legally able, according to this order from the Governor, to kill a Mormon. You find out somebody is a Mormon, kill him. Or, drive him from the state.” (3:50)
The so-called Extermination Order, while definitely deplorable, was not what Mr. Beck claimed it to be. Mormons love to perpetuate this particular set of myths. In truth, Governor Boggs’ Executive Order No. 44 sought to avoid bloodshed, not legalize it. As a military order, it called for the Missouri militia to “exterminate” — that is, “remove” — Mormons from their homes and force them to leave the state. This was clearly understood in 1838. It was never “legal” to kill Mormons in Missouri.
Mr. Beck said that this was unique in American history – no one had ever been exterminated before. (3:42)
Between the years of 1830-1838 various Native American tribes had been forcibly removed from their lands at least five times. The concept of people-group removal, noted Mormon historian William Hartley, “was not new” in 1838 Missouri.
Trail of Tears, Robert Lindneux
Mr. Beck said that the Mormons who lived in Caldwell County, Missouri were forced to sign over their property to the Missourians and then were ordered to pay for the military campaign against them. (4:40)
In fact, the deed of trust (for the purpose of paying the expenses of the war) signed by the Mormons after their surrender in Missouri was quickly deemed illegal and was therefore never enforced. The Mormons retained ownership of their property after the war, and many of them sold or traded it to help pay for their expenses in moving to Illinois. However, they did often sell it for much less than it was worth.
Mr. Beck said that the Mormons left Missouri for Nauvoo, “then the mobs came in and burned down that city as well.” (5:40)
Actually, “the mobs” never burned down any Mormon city. After some years in Illinois, troubles between Mormons and non-Mormons started up again, and both sides in the conflict engaged in raiding, plundering and intimidating one another. These raids included burnings of crops and outlying buildings, but the city of Nauvoo was never burned down.
When the Mormons began to leave Nauvoo, according to Mr. Beck, “most of the men were dead.” (6:00)
No, this is not true. There has never been an official accounting of the Mormons who died in the Missouri war/exodus (to the best of my knowledge, none but the Smith brothers died in the Nauvoo conflicts), but according to Mormon historical sources, the number of Mormon deaths was somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 souls. These were sad, tragic and needless deaths; nevertheless, these deaths do not represent “most of the men.” Furthermore, a few seconds after making his nonsensical claim, Mr. Beck mentioned the Mormon Battalion. If “most of the men were dead” as he claimed, where did the 500 battalion volunteers come from?
Finally Mr. Beck returned to the question of polygamy. He said, “there weren’t a lot of dudes left,” so one reason polygamy was instituted was to repopulate and to care for women and children who were left alone. (6:55)
Given the historical fact that relatively few Mormon men had died during this turbulent time, Bill McKeever asks a good question: “Are we really to believe God decided to alter the one man, one woman tradition of marriage embraced by much of the western world because fewer than a hundred women living in 19th century America lost their husbands to indefensible acts of persecution or while relocating to the Salt Lake Valley?”
Mr. Beck claimed that only 5% of Mormons practiced polygamy. (7:30)
Five percent is a great underestimate. Author B. Carmon Hardy put Mormon polygamy numbers in perspective: “Recent studies suggest that the number of Mormons living in polygamous families between 1850 and 1890, while varying from community to community and year to year, averaged between 20 and 30 percent. In some cases the proportion was higher. The practice was especially extensive with Mormon leaders, both locally and those presiding over the entire church. These calculations would indicate that, during the entire time the principle was practiced, the number of men, women, and children living in polygamous households amounted to tens of thousands” (Solemn Covenant, 17).
This Blaze TV program dedicated to the so-called dispelling of Mormon myths is so disappointing. What I’ve addressed here is not exhaustive; it does not attempt to deal with all the myths Glenn Beck perpetuated in his “myth buster” segment on polygamy. But one thing is clear: Mr. Beck really had no interest in setting the record straight.
In addition to sustaining long-held, faith-promoting myths so beloved by Mormons, Mr. Beck completely ignored the doctrinal — and darker — side of Mormon polygamy. He never mentioned that Joseph Smith claimed to have received a revelation in which Mormon men were commanded to take multiple wives, and wives were commanded to accept it. Mr. Beck didn’t mention men marrying women who already had living husbands (this fact would not fit with the assertion that polygamy was instituted for the care of women who had lost their husbands). He did not mention the fact that often, plural wives were not adequately cared for by their husbands and lived in poverty while trying to support their children on their own. Mr. Beck never mentioned that Mormon leaders taught polygamy was “was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come” (First Presidency, “Petition For Amnesty,” December 19,1891).
The LDS Church no longer allows members to practice polygamy in this life, yet it once encouraged it, while claiming God commanded it, and required obedience to it. Explaining these things to those who wonder why Mormonism and polygamy are linked together is the only way to truthfully dispel Mormon myths.
—
Sources and additional information (in no particular order):
- The Demise of the LDS Church in Kirtland
- Persecution and Polygamy: How Many Mormons Actually Died as a Result of 19th Century Persecution?
- Governor Boggs vs. the Mormons
- Deseret News: Extermination Order not believed to be ‘death sentence’
- The Polygamy Dilemma – Is Plural Marriage a Dead Issue in Mormonism?
- Mormonism 201: Chapter 16 – Polygamy
- LDS.org: Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah
- Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois, John E. Hallwas and Roger D. Launius
- “Missouri’s 1838 Extermination Order and the Mormons’ Forced Removal to Illinois,” William G. Hartley, Mormon Historical Studies (Volume 2, Number 1, 2001)
Sad as it is, it seems mormons off all types seem to leave out information and not provide all the facts. Then they wonder why we don’t trust them or claim they lie. Seems as if this is taught behavior in the lds church.
Sharon,
You say that the so-called “extermination order” is misunderstood and that the word ‘extermination’ in it meant to ‘remove’ (your words above). In a past post you wrote –
Here is the famous line –
”The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace–their outrages are beyond all description.”
So to render this text the way you want it to read would make it read as –
The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be driven out or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace–their outrages are beyond all description.
I believe that the correct grammatical term for that is redundant. I do not think the governor is trying to say that the LDS need to be driven out or driven from the state, I think it means exactly as most people interpret it today.
This on top of another comment you referenced by Sydney Rigdon which predated this order and, you infer, incited the order. Sydney Rigdon said –
”And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us”
When you wrote the previous article you commented that because of the words used in this statement Rigdon actually meant to kill – I agree. But if this did incite the order, then the use of the word ‘exterminate’ in both would refer to the same meaning as they were meant to parallel each other – ie the order from Gov. Boggs was meant to counter the comment by Sydney Rigdon.
I do agree with your sentiment, and Gov. Boggs view, that it wasn’t meant to cause bloodshed, however, it was basically threatening the LDS with death (extermination) if they did not move out, thus they were driven from the state by fear of death. If Gov. Boggs didn’t mean the word to mean ‘kill’ then why didn’t he explain that succinctly when asked to explain himself after the fact? Since we weren’t there and we don’t know his mindset, none of us can say for sure exactly what he meant. But unless he was being redundant in his speech and he never heard Sydney Rigdon’s words (which I am sure most of the state would have heard about and understood), then I do think that his use of the word ‘exterminate’ is a conscious effort to counter what Sydney Rigdon said and give the powers to the military (as that is who the order is sent to) to use whatever means necessary to wipe the state clean of LDS.
Ralph,
You bring up a good point, but the way I looked at it, the word “or” in the order to “exterminate or drive out” indicates which meaning is meant by exterminate. Such as “he is the boss or someone totally cool” or you can say “he is the boss or the one you report to at work”.
Ralph wrote:
“So to render this text the way you want it to read would make it read as –
The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be driven out or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace–their outrages are beyond all description.
“I believe that the correct grammatical term for that is redundant. I do not think the governor is trying to say that the LDS need to be driven out or driven from the state, I think it means exactly as most people interpret it today.”
I see this (grammatically) as an appositive and basically agree with the Deseret News article I cited in my source list, that Governor Boggs most likely meant, “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or (in other words) driven from the state if necessary for the public peace.” I believe that in this way Governor Boggs did explain exactly what he meant.
Over the last few months I have read through the Missouri Mormon War Papers and many additional contemporary accounts about the short-lived Mormon War. Through these it is abundantly clear that everyone understood that the Mormons were to be driven out of Missouri; no one was talking about killing them. It was not, “Leave or be killed,” it was more like, “Leave with your possessions when you are prepared or we will push you out empty-handed.”
The truth of what happened to the Mormons in Missouri is bad enough; there’s no reason to make it sound worse than it actually was.
Pingback: Mormon myths | Glenn Beck | correcting | Beck is wrong | Christianity
I’ve watched Glenn Beck’s news show several times , he brings to my attention some
important information about what our Government is up that I agree with . I wish he
would stick to that . Because of his jovial personally and his strong patriotism , both
displayed constantly in public , he no doubt has influenced people to consider his
religion . I have to think that he would be a very strong candidate to run the Mormon
church P.R. Dept . because of his ability to serve the public Mormonism and make it
taste as good as apple pie . Thank goodness there are ministries like MRM that make
information available to people so that they can get beyond the personality of Mormons
like Glenn Beck and be informed about what Mormonism teaches .
Notice that Boggs uses the words “exterminated OR driven from the state if necessary for the public peace… He did not give a blanket extermination order. He also qualified it with “IF NECESSARY”, (which applies to the “extermination” part of the order – most likely dependent on what the Mormons did) so it wasn’t a blanket order for genocide (as many Mormons still claim today).
What prompted the order was that the Mormons engaged State Militia at Smith’s order. (That order was given to David Patton, ol’ Capt’n Fearnaught) Bad move. Also, the Missourians weren’t the first to use extermination language, which Boggs may or may not have known about, but the Danites had been in operation since the summer before, and that may have been reported to Boggs.
After Boggs was shot, Wilford Woodruff wrote,
Funny that this is what Brigham Young said about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. (Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little). Smith, after being kidnapped and almost returned to Missouri to face charges of treason gave a speech in which he declared,
But then in the same speech picked up the violent rhetoric again,
Quote:
Furthermore if Missouri continues her warfare & continues to Issue her writs against me & this people unlawfully & unjustly as they have done & our rights are trampled upon & they under take to take away my wrights I sware with uplifted hands to Heaven I will spill my Blood in its defence. They shall not take away our rights, & if they dont stop leading me by the nose I will lead them by the nose & if they dont let me alone I will turn up the world. I will make war. (ibid)
Later that year (1842), Smith again spoke of Boggs,
Surely not true, because other people saw him with guns. For example,
The crux of Smith’s defense was that he “HAD NO CONTROL OF TEMPORAL THINGS”. But this is a lie. D. Michael Quinn writes,
Smith wrote for the Times and seasons in July of 1842 (Quinn again):
The “outrages” of the Mormons in Missouri were well documented, as was the response to them by the Missourians. If it was Boggs intention to just exterminate the Mormons, then why did he write this:
How much easier it would have been to declare that Smith had committed treason and then just shoot him? All done by the military. Instead, Boggs appealed to the civil courts. Smith was still charged with treason though, because of the many statements that he made (which I’ll document in my follow up post). If everyone interpreted Executive Order 44 in the same way that Beck and man modern Mormons do, then why did they not just wholesale shoot the Mormons? They did not. They were driven from the State, which Boggs clearly intended. I agree that the language of the Order was bad, but there were also men carrying that order and then implementing it, and their later actions prove that the extermination rhetoric was only to drive them from the state, not an order to physically kill all the Mormons.
Sidney Rigdon confirmed this doctrine (of the Church governing the temporal affairs of men) on April 5, 1844:
Then Rigdon revealed to thousands of Mormons that the purpose of Mormon’s theocratic “system of government” was to set aside at will the laws of the United States and of all other secular governments:
This is not true, (that they don’t interfere) and the Mormons still do this today (Prop 8 in California being a good example). Again, Quinn:
This type of thinking had been going on in Missouri, and was manifested in Smith’s Danites, of which he admitted for a fact that they existed and that he approved of them:
Although Governor Boggs had done virtually nothing to protect Mormons from predatory Missourians, the Danite assault on the militia at Crooked River put the politician into action. On 27 October 1838 Boggs issued a directive to Major-General John B. Clark, which read in part:
John Corrill testified about Smith’s establishing religion by the point of a sword,
Footnote to page 167 of The History of the Church Vol. III:
Testimony from Senate Documents:
TESTIMONY OF George M. Hinkle:
TESTIMONY OF George Walter:
TESTIMONY OF Abner Scovil:
It was well known in Nauvoo that Jo had “prophesied” the death of Boggs.
Rockwell was acquitted for lack of evidence, which is not surprising in this case. Equating his innocence based on his getting acquitted in Missouri is ridiculous, because not all Missourians were anti-Mormons, there were many that helped the Mormons, and it is quite easy to believe that Rockwell got a fair trial, and that there just wasn’t enough evidence to indict him. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide that since Smith would lie about his reasons for NOT being involved in Bogg’s killing, (was not involved in temporal affairs) then how are we to believe him when he says that he didn’t order the killing?
Brigham Young would later say that the men who opposed the “saints” must submit to blood atonement to be forgiven:
I’m sort of surprised at Beck’s presentation. I think he prides himself on being a historian of some sort. And here he is simply repeating Mormon myths. If he knows better he’s just acting as a shill for the LDS church and I can’t help but believe he knows better. So he chooses his burning in the bosom over being accurate and forthright.
There’s more to Sharon’s article than the “extermination” order.
“What I’ve addressed here is not exhaustive; it does not attempt to deal with all the myths Glenn Beck perpetuated in his “myth buster” segment on polygamy. But one thing is clear: Mr. Beck really had no interest in setting the record straight.”
Personally I have a tough time listening to Glenn Beck’s radio program. I like it a lot better when he’s not there and his two subs sit in tandem.
This video is really something! A seemingly educated, even worldly wise (surely he is given his politic experience), person not just spreading the most obvious inaccuracies, but about his own religion AND in a segment about clearing up myths!!I saw this video earlier last year and he gets it wrong on everything.
LDS like to point out how the average member is higher educated than those of other religions, but it doesn’t do them any good. Once you accept the mostly unspoken skepticism of religious truth and accept the narrow extreme of spiritual experience only,it all goes out the door. Add in a good helping of “these people are so nice and respectable surely they wouldn’t…” Be wrong, spread misinformation, lie, and you get this kind of abominable crap. I’m sorry d for any offense but that is what this video is. You either have to hope he us lying to spare his intelligence or you have to hope he is duped to spare his morality. But, in the later, what about intellectual morality?
When do oh so serious about morals mormons take intellectual morals and ethics seriously?? When do they realize they throw away the tools Good has given us to learn about him and not be deceived when they accept subjective experience over every thing else by far? How is this loving God with all your mind?
And then there’s falcon’s favored point about mormons just digging it.. That helps the lapse of intellect and judgment too.
I understand cynicism, especially about human ability to find truth, let alone understand it. I get that the world and Christianity seem too complicated and difficult. I even kind of understand the temptation to either give up or crawl into a shall dark box with only one small night light called personal revelation. But if Good is rally important to you.If truth is rally important to you. If you think God is really worth any thing, any sacrifice, any service, then FIGHT! Fight the confusion and despair! Fight the feeling of bring lost and vulnerable! Seek God first! Seek first the Kingdom of God. Above and before your comfort and personal experience of peace and even understanding! Seek the God that Is before ANY OTHER GOOD THING.
Seek God as He really Is, not as you would like or feel encouraged or even special…and surely not only if you think you understand! Reality is raw and unexpected.Truth is stark and uncompromising and complex and confusing and yet there, it is. Should God be any different?
If your God is too nice, comfortable, and understandable, you better think again. You may be having your ears tickled.