Listen to this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism as Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson discuss a lesser-known event from Mormon history: Sidney Rigdon’s 1838 July 4th speech. Brigham Young claimed this speech “was the prime cause of [Mormon] troubles in Missouri” (Times and Seasons, 5:667).
Viewpoint on Mormonism: Sidney Rigdon’s July 4th Oration
(Audio, 14 minutes)
I think it important to include in the facts the actual wording of Gov. Boggs’ order. According to wiki he said,
” 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.”
I would like to point out that this is not accurately referred to as an “extermination order”, no more than if we referred to Rigdon’s “4th of July oration” as the “Extermination Oration”.
Something I just realized – for all those LDS who speak of the lies of ain’tImormons- consider that it is not only the aints that so nicely refer to it as the 4th of July oration AND dont use “extermination oration” but it is the LDS who use “extermination order” instead of order #44 (I think it was) or “driven or exterminated order”.
Maybe that will be the greatest revelation in all of this for some LDS- the aints were not only fair but NICE. Did the spin FOR the church…
No responses to this from the LDS? Does this mean that the LDS here will stop or never start speaking of the LDS church being the only one to have an “extermination order” given against it by the United States of America? Perhaps you will only say “exterminstion or driven out” order. Or maybe you will go so far as to say “of course, one of our top leaders started the extermination talk”. Maybe you might even not just throw Rigdon under the bus and say, ” the top leaders really made things worse though”…
May be.
Spartacus,
Speaking of Extermination orders given against the U.S. Mormon “prophets” and “apostles” have had it in for America since the beginning. To them, ALL OF AMERICA except the Mormons were evil and wicked. They only tolerated the Indians [Lamanites] because their “scriptures” said they had to, because someday those latter-day Lamanites would “rise up” against the evil Gentiles and give America to the Mormons. Here is a continuation of my Zion information, that ties directly into your comments in an interesting way…
On April 25, 1844 Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal,
This of course failed to come true. They were not “rid” of their “old enemies”. One “enemy” was the United States Government. You all know Jo’s prophecies concerning that. They begin with his failure to “redeem” Zion. You see, Jo never got that out of his system. When he could not get back into Missouri because he was wanted for treason, he of course threw out his old timetable of Sept. 11, 1836, and made a new one. This one (given on July 19, 1840) was that 12 “stakes” of “Zion” which was now “all of America” (not just Missouri) had to be built first. Jo had invented this idea when the Mormons were kicked out of Jackson County (the centerplace) in October 1833. Read D&C Section 101: 43-62 (given December 1833). You see, Jo thought that the Mormons could “plant” 11 “stakes” around the centerplace, and then the Mormons would be built up enough to then attack the Missourians in Jackson County and as the “revelation” mentioned above says: “break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen. And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.” (verses 57-58)
This was all supposed to happen by Sept. 11, 1836. By 1837 Jo was talking about those “stakes” as Mary Fielding wrote in a letter:
Well, Jo fled Kirtland just three months later and “set in order” the church in Missouri by sacking the Whitmer Presidency and fanning the flames of militarism. This was the rise of the Danites. This was Jo’s cry, “the alcoran or the sword”. He failed yet again. The Mormons then settled in Commerce Ill., and Jo retooled his “prophecy” once again. This time he said,
Huh? Now it’s not Missouri but ANYWHERE? Well some did “suppose” it because Jo said so in 1831:
And he said so in D&C 101 (the very same “revelation” he quoted the parable of the 12 olive trees from)!!! Read it folks,
>Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered. They that remain, and are pure in heart, shall return, and come to their inheritances, they and their children, with songs of everlasting joy, to build up the waste places of Zion—And all these things that the prophets might be fulfilled. And, behold, there is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed; neither shall there be any other place appointed than that which I have appointed, for the work of the gathering of my saints—Until the day cometh when there is found no more room for them; and then I have other places which I will appoint unto them, and they shall be called stakes, for the curtains or the strength of Zion. (verses 17-21)
So now you need to ignore all that about Zion not being “moved out of her place” and that there would only be more stakes “when there is no more room for them” in Jackson County. But by 1840 this was impossible, so you see Jo had to retool his “revelations” and prophecies a bit. So then he said this:
Did you get that? Do you see what Jo said at the last? “Salt that has lost is savor and is good for nothing…” The same thing Sidney Rigdon said when he gave his own “extermination order” against the dissenters. The Danites were alive and well in Nauvoo, because they originated with Jo. So ask yourself, who did that really come from? There you see the answer. So now, 12 “stakes” have to be built. Sigh. And Nauvoo would be one of them. Here are Jo’s prophecies about Nauvoo:
Just like Jackson County would be “redeemed”. Such are the prophecies of Jo Smith. He adds one more that is of interest:
When did the Mormon Church pass the 12 stake mark?
End of Part I. In Part II I’ll discuss a few of the Downfall of America prophecies, that had to happen before 1890.
Spartacus
Just what does it take for an order to be an extermination order?
Shematwater,
I never claimed that it was not an “extermination order” but that it was not JUST an “extermination order”. I would think that would be obvious from what I wrote shematwater.
The counterpoint question to you would be:
Does Rigdon’s oration have what it takes to be an “extermination oration”?
Or
Does Joseph Smith’s and Rigdon’s pamphlet propagating Rigdon’s oration have what it takes to be an “extermination pamphlet” or “extermination propaganda”?
Shematwater, I think you know my point was that it is dishonestly incomplete to refer to it solely as an “extermination order”and dishonestly biased to speak of “only religion to have an extermination order against it by the US” without mentioning that the LDS church is the only religion to threaten extermination.
I would think that this is an obvious description of the facts with minimum editorial – little with which to argue. But it is a point that needs to be made for fairness and integrity.
Spartacus
You never once gave an indication that is was not JUST and extermination order. You said, and I quote “not accurately referred to as an “extermination order.” This says nothing about even part of it being an extermination order, but clearly indicates that you don’t think the order qualifies to be described as an order to exterminate. Now, wether you meant it this way or not, this is how you said it.
I am not fully aquainted with Rigdon’s speech, but will comment on that later.
And for those interested, here is the full text of the order. You will note that the entire things deals directly with the order to exterminate or drive from the state, and even mentions intercepting those Mormon who attempt to retreat North. From the text it is clear the only purpose of this order was as an extermination order.
Headquarters of the Militia, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.
Gen. John B. Clark:
Sir: Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Reese, Esq., of Ray county, and Wiley C. Williams, Esq., one of my aids [sic], information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operation with all possible speed. 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. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Willock, of Marion county, to raise five hundred men, and to march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with five hundred men to proceed to the same point for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north. They have been directed to communicate with you by express, you can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead therefore of proceeding as at first directed to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond and then operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command.
I am very respectfully, yr obt st [your obedient servant],
L. W. Boggs, Commander-in-Chief.
Now, some might say that since it also mentions driving from the state that this is something other than extermination. However, the only definition I can find for what an extermination order is includes this, as the idea of such an order is to irradicate the presence of a certain group from the jurisdiciton of the ordering authority. This was an extermination order, and nothing in it deals with anything else.
Executive Order 44. says, notice the emphasis,
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”, so it wasn’t a blanket order for genocide.
The Mormon engaged State Militia at Smith’s order. Bad move. Also, the Missourians weren’t the first to use extermination language. That credit goes to Sidney Rigdon:
After Boggs was shot, Wilford Woodruff wrote,
Smith, after being taken into custody 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,
Later that year, Smith again spoke of Boggs,
Too many people in Nauvoo heard Smith prophecy in 1842 that Boggs would be dead in a year. The crux of Smith’s defense was that he “HAD NO CONTROL OF TEMPORAL THINGS”. But this is a lie. Michael Quinn writes,
Smith wrote for the Times and seasons in July of 1842:
Sidney Rigdon confirmed this doctrine on April 5, 1844:
“When God sets up a system of salvation, he sets up a system of government; when I speak of a government I mean what I say; I mean a government that shall rule over temporal and spiritual affairs.”
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 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 in his own journal:
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:
The governor’s “extermination order,” as it subsequently became known, was supported by the unwritten—though frequently avowed—right of American citizens to expel unwanted groups or individuals from their midst. Rigdon himself had used this reasoning to justify forcing Mormon dissidents from Far West. Boggs later said his principal desire was to quell Mormon insurrection without bloodshed. The muster of such a massive military force from his perspective was merely to “awe [the Saints] into submission.”
Initially Mormons, unaware of the size of the military contingent, were not awed. Responding to a rumor that the governor had called out the militia, Smith scoffed:
Albert Rockwood,
Too many people with nothing to gain said that Jo was behind the Danites, indeed did carry a sword and threatened to kill people. Jo’s defense in Missouri was one lie after another. Bogg’s order was not only an extermination order, it was an either or order. Like when someone is wanted dead or alive. If they resist, use deadly force. Mormons trying to say that this order was a blanket extermination order are reaching. It was not. If it was, why were the Mormons not all murdered when Jo surrendered? Where are the concentration camps? There never was any teeth in that order, Boggs knew it, and the Mormons today know it, because nothing happened to the Mormons after they surrendered. If they had put up arms and fought the state, it might have been different.