Nobody told me Boggs was shot at

[_Quasimodo]

I mean't "weren't" morons..... not were. Obviously. you petty childish fools.

Anyone can make a typo. It happens all the time to me. Calling others "petty childish fools" for pointing that out to you is not a typo. Consider admitting your mistake and apologizing. It sounds much better and is much less offensive.

[Guest]

ldsfaqs wrote:

Bull.... Do you understand English? An order was given which was KILL, and then there is an "or" added to the order.

If the order had said what you claim, it would have said.... "Drive the Mormons from the State "OR" kill their stupid butts!"

Instead, it was written the opposite..... Exterminate OR drive them off.
Read words for as they are, instead of what you wish them to be.

And as to Mormons firing on people..... Mormons were the ones going around killing people. They "reacting" in self defense to unlawful and immoral actions is not THEM being the bad guys.
Are you telling me YOU wouldn't fire on people that were threatening your life, family, community, property, livelihood etc.??? Of course you would. Stop making Mormons who just wanted to practice their religion the bad guys.

You are like liberals who blame Israel for simply existing and defending themselves when attacked. If bigotry and murder wasn't standard fair for that region, there would be no problems, for Israel would live in their area and others would live in theirs.

I understand English perfectly, do you? Exterminate is harsh language, but it was also used by the Mormons first. Do you think that Sidney Rigdon and Jo Smith wanted to commit genocide against the church dissenters? Kill their whole families? No, they wanted them to leave or be killed. Yet Rigdon said it would be a "war of extermination" on them and their families. You are getting too worked up over the language on both sides. It was a difficult situation for both sides, and there was plenty of blame to go around.

Personally, I don't own a gun and I wouldn't fire on anyone. I'd walk away. That is what Jesus told us to do. In fact, Jesus told us to give them your possessions. Now, there is nothing wrong with self defense, but I'm not personally comfortable with the thought of killing anybody. Maybe you are. The fact is, Jo and Sidney called for the extermination of those that left their church and were critical of it. Their response was to "exterminate" them. Gov. Boggs, on the other hand, was dealing with actual violence. His reaction was extreme, but the reaction of the Mormon Hierarchy to the dissenters was far worse, because (to my knowledge) not one of them had threatened any of their brethren.

As for "blaming Israel for existing", what does that have to do with the Rigdon/Bogg's call for extermination? It is not just wanting to "practice your religion" when you threaten to kill people who leave your church as Jo and Sidney did to Oliver Cowdery, the Whitmers, John Corrill, and others.

[_grindael]

Arrakis,

Joseph H. Jackson is an interesting character. He certainly was close to Joseph Smith and played both sides like John C. Bennett which makes it hard to discern the truth in their exposés. James B. Allen did write this about Jackson,

Joseph Smith was a good judge of character when he selected William Clayton to be his scribe, confidant, and land agent. But he was not always so perceptive, especially when someone played upon his natural sympathies. His predisposition toward trust and generosity created more than one disappointment for him. A case in point was Joseph H. Jackson who for a time loomed as a possible successor to Clayton as the prophet's land agent. Perhaps this was one of the tests of faith so often experienced by the disciple from Penwortham, for the prophet almost replaced him with a scoundrel.

Jackson first appeared in Nauvoo in the fall of 1842 but left when someone, thinking him a Missouri spy, took a shot at him. He went to Carthage, became acquainted with several anti-Mormons, and in March returned to Nauvoo. Joseph Smith first met him on May 18, 1843, as he returned from a visit with Stephen A. Douglas in Carthage and found Jackson waiting at his home. Lying to the prophet, Jackson said that he was a Catholic priest, and two days later Joseph took him along as he rode out on the prairie with Clayton to look at land. Suddenly the prophet informed his clerk that in order to relieve him [p.86] of the burden of selling lands he had appointed Jackson to take over. The new man, he said, appeared to be a "fine & noble fellow," but he was reduced in circumstances and Joseph felt disposed to hire him in order to "give him a chance in the world." For his part, Jackson promised Joseph and William that soon he would be baptized.

Jackson, however, did not join the church, and before long his actions began to belie the prophet's first impression. Only three days after the ride on the prairie, Joseph had occasion to question one of his wives, Eliza Partridge, about the conduct of Jackson while Joseph was away, and he later told Clayton that "Jackson is rotten hearted." But even then the falling out was not immediate, and as late as December 29 Jackson was there when Joseph told of some of his early revelations. Jackson again declared that he was almost persuaded to unite with Joseph, to which the prophet replied: "I would that he were not only almost, but altogether." Eventually Jackson became an anti-Mormon of the worst sort, involving himself in conspiracies that led to Joseph Smith's assassination and even publishing an expose of the church. Jackson, it appeared from his own admission, had returned to Nauvoo only so he could win the prophet's confidence and then reveal to the world the "real designs and nature of his operations." He intentionally deceived the prophet, he later explained, for "the end justified the means," and in 1846 he published his expose. ~James B. Allen, Trials of Discipleship, p.86

I think there is more to it that. I often wonder how Jo could claim that Mormons by the priesthood have the power of discernment and yet be duped by so many people.

[_Megacles]

This is one one story that has caught my attention each time I hear of it. In Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman describes a Christmas party at the Smith home:

In the middle of the festivities a disheveled figure with long hair stumbled in, pretending to be a Missourian. Joseph scuffled with the man until he saw it was Orrin Porter Rockwell, now released from a Missouri prison where he had been held on suspicion of shooting Lilburn Boggs. Rockwell had been moved from jail to hail and was held for weeks before he was finally acquitted. After his release he walked for twelve days to arrive in Nauvoo, as it happened, just in time for the party.

I do not excuse Rockwell, but I do believe it is important to remember that 'getting shot' in frontier America was quite different from getting shot today. Those entering law enforcement, for example, were probably expected to be shot a few times in their career. It did not always mean death. Speed and accuracy have greatly improved since then.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Anybody that actually studies LDS history knows Rockwell tried to kill Boggs.

Ya, you anti's are such "experts" on Mormonism. :rolleyes:

Oh, and it's just so "terrible" to teach someone a lesson when the threaten deadly force against you, pre-empting their own actions. Just so terrible to actually BE A MAN, standing for right against the evils others want to do to you or others. :eek:

This must be why it was never brought up in four years of Seminary and the full course of church classes at BYU through graduation.

Any mention that Joseph Smith announced Boggs had been assassinated, only to later have to say he had only been shot, not killed? That is in the record somewhere.

Or is it not an 'ldsfact'?