Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Assassination Attempt

It was never proved that Orrin Porter Rockwell was ever connected with the assassination attempt on Governor Boggs. In fact, there is more evidence against the idea of Rockwell as the assassin then there is for it. The major source where I drew my conclusions from was...

• Richard Lloyd Dewey, Porter Rockwell: a Biography, Paramount Books, ISBN 0961602406 (1986; Hardcover, 13th edition, 2002).
• Numerous other sites and several Volumes of History of the Church that gave evidence for and against Rockwell.

My conclusion is that he is innocent, but since it is up for debate, that section of the article just needs to be re-written.
Potatosalad 23:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Legality

Despite the fact that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," General Boggs still enacted a law that was constitutinally illegal. The first Amendment protects the worshipping in any way they want, and also makes it illegal to make laws relative to one's religion. Madd the sane 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I watched "Utah, the Struggle for Statehood" last night on TV. It is a three-part series on the area that is now Utah, from when the Mormon pioneers arrived in 1847 until a few days after Utah obtained statehood on January 4, 1896. They covered three Supreme Court cases about 1890; all three were judged in the disfavor of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. One of them upheld a law in Idaho that stripped Mormons of all of their rights of citizenship simply for their religious affiliation. If the Extermination Order would have made it to the Supreme Court of the time, I suspect that it would have also been upheld. Val42 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but isn't the supreme court supposed to uphold the constitution and not undermine it? I'm sorry, I know I'm in a losing battle. --Madd the sane 03:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd think so. But the only check on the US Supreme Court is the US Congress. Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of anything, if the Supreme Court makes a decision that is clearly "unconstitutional", is it really unconstitutional? If Congress does not remove those Supreme Court justices who voted for the "unconstitutional" decision, the decision will clearly stand. But what if Congress votes to remove the Supreme Court justices and they refuse to stand down, ruling that the "removal" was unconstituional? What we've been discussing (in our opinion) violates the constitution and Congress didn't act to remove the justices. The people of the time were behind (what we consider) the unconstituional acts of the Supreme Court and the failure to act by Congress. These were the circumstances of the time. Val42 03:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the only way that Governor Boggs's extermination order could be deemed "unconstitutional" is if it violated the Missouri Constitution. Rights protected in the First Amendment only applied to the Federal government until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The extermination order was issued in 1838 by a state official, not a federal official, so it falls outside the scope of First Amendment free exercise protections. So the above discussion is irrelevant. Kiggs24 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Even at that, the Constitution does not give any religion a blank check. The Mormons had greatly abused their position, antagonized their neighbors and generally raised mayhem. But, I notice that this is mostly filtered out of this article, drawing, as it does, mostly from Mormon-published resources. Pooua 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that federal law is higher than state and local laws. All laws must adhere to the restrictions and liberties in the US Constitution. Your argument that the above is irrelevant is flawed. Also, the claims that "The

Mormons had greatly abused their position, antagonized their neighbors and generally raised mayhem" are well represented in the article, though it is not mentioned that there is great debate and much evidence to the contrary on this issue. This is far from sticking to "Mormon-published resources." In general, this was a nearly lawless time in a frontier state. Laws were often overlooked or ignored. Information was not nearly as available as now. All of this must be understood in context. Sorria2000 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

From Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44/Comments

The following was originally posted to Talk:Extermination order/Comments, which was then moved to Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44/Comments, but should have been posted to the regular talk page in the first place, so moved here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The portion about the Mormon war and Joseph Smith leading the "Danites" to seek revenge after they were not allowed to vote at Gallatin is a complete fabrication. Where is the primary source or proof that this was not a total lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.91.42 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 31 August 2007

Primary Source

I found the scan of the original document in the CES manual online. If anyone can find a better way to get an image of the primary source, it would be a good resource in this article. It looks to me like the image fits public domain, because you can't copyright an image of someone else's work (i.e., the State of Missouri), and the original document is old enough. But if it makes anyone edgy, please find a better source! Jerekson 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

POV and accuracy

this is clearly a very one sided LDS version of events. I am intending to make some additions to the article to show historical context. In the meantime, more info is available at http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/legacy1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianerc (talk • contribs)

When adding a POV dispute, editors are supposed to be specific about which items they dispute. While I agree that more can be added of how the Mormon militia including the galatin voting skirmish, background on why the Mormons attacked in response to rapes and a burned cabin at the battle of crooked river, and Rigdon's July sermon using the term "extermination" as a response to the term being used in the secret constitution (it was actually the first document to use the work "extermination" at the time) could be added, I see nothing factually incorrect about the article at a quick read. Please be more specific, or the POV notification will be removed. Lack of content and POV are two seperate issues. -Visorstuff 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with another one sided view of this story. I mean, that's what everyone reads in their history books. The view portrayed in the history books is just as one sided, but no one has a problem with that. An example of this would be the fact that almost no history book found in any school classroom talks about "the examination order", or the mobs that sought out and killed many Mormons. Instead, they focus almost solely on the things like the "Mormon Battalion". If anyone is going to try to correct the one sided stories, it should be our one sided history books that we should target, not public online forums, which are far more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnylingo (talk • contribs)

Overall I agree with Visorstuff. You'll have to be more specific because most the material in that link--the KSS failure and everything that happened post-Missouri, for example--doesn't seem related to the Order at all. Article doesn't look bad. Cool Hand Luke 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not notice anything that is blatantly obvious, but there are many statements that need to be referenced. As the article stands now, it needs work. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, let us be diligent to ensure that the article is historically based and presents facts from both sides. The Tanner's reference from above can assist that we cover both sides. Frankly, history speaks for itself and to fear it removes reason; where reason is removed, faith is belittled. Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, only just got back to this. The POV of the article is that it implies that there was some unprovoked attack on a peaceful religious group. Which was not the case at the time. Additionally it makes allegations about 'rapes' and other atrocities that do not appear to have an historical basis.

Ian Erc

For a tag to be legitimate there must be clear reasons provided. Given the current focus, I am removing the tag; if someone feels strongly about it, please add it back with specific problems identified that allows corrections to be implemented to remove by concensus. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is still strongly POV, in that it downplays Mormon culpability while placing most of the blame on the Missourians. Most of the basis for the article are documents (newspapers and books) written by Mormons, so it is not surprising that they have a bias. There is no mention in the article, for example, of the statements made in the Mormon newspaper that the Mormons were destined to possess all the land. The Mormons moved into Missouri with the assumption that they had a deed from God to own the place, and some of them were very loud about that belief. Pooua 00:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the Danites is barely mentioned, and then only as a claim in a Missourian dispatch. Pooua 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean that the Mormons bear some contributory responsibility for a state governor the United States issuing an Extermination Order. That is a bit like making the victim responsible for the actions of the perpetrators, no? I think that plays as well as saying the Jews are responsible for their own genocide by Hitler. I suppose it can be done, but I think there is no excuse for any state or government anywhere in the world issuing an extermination order of any people. Just my two cents.

However, having said that all articles should be balanced. If there is another reputable source that meets your objective that explains why issuing an extermination order is acceptable action, by all means include it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mormons *were* perpetrators! That is what is missing in this article. Consider the reason that Joseph Smith had to leave Ohio--he set up an unchartered bank that failed, causing investors to lose millions. Then, he decides that the Mormons have been given Missouri by God, and the Mormons say so publicly. Mormon leadership became notorious in Missouri--as they were everywhere else they had passed--for theft, cheats and various other forms of law-breaking, which, if they explained at all, they excused under the guise of religion. And, as a point brought up by someone else in these comments, it was a Mormon leader who first brought up the issue of exterminating the other party, and it was certainly the Mormons who attacked an official government militia, killing some of its members. The Mormons took up arms, not just defensively, but also offensively. So, no, Mormons are not innocent victims in this matter, and any government would be justified in using lethal force to rid itself of violent insurrectionists. 168.127.0.52 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly logical decsion; if you steal, we will kill you. If you own a gun, we will exterminate not only you, but your entire family. If you have personal beliefs that differ from the main, then you are worthy of death. What is so shocking is that this is not some third world terroist, Muslim outback, we call this the United States of America. Not only was it approved then, it would be an approved action today; and we wonder why "Christians" have a bad reputation in the world, why there are atheists that reject the very concept of relgion. I reject your thoughts wholly and completely; you represent everything I despise in organized religion; however, if you want to document your postion with reputable sources go for it. While you are at it, you might want to check out Moutain Meadows Massacre and explain why those slaughtered travellers deserved it; if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Based upon your thinking if they are exterminated they deserve it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of me, and regardless of what either of us thinks of morality of the incidents in 19th Century Missouri, this is not the place to argue such points. This is, instead, the place where the historical record is to be reflected. And, historically, significant numbers of Mormon leaders in 1838 Missouri were blood-thirsty. Pooua 07:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blood-thirst? Seriously? Where's your historic reference for that? The blood-thirsty "Mormons" were those who had left the Church and were on the side of Missouri (and instigating much of the fighting) in fighting against the Mormons. Sorria2000 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to contain a strong anti-Mormon bias, perhaps in reaction to a pro-Mormon bias noted by Ianerc against an earlier version of the document. Here are some specific instances:

From the "Speeches by Sidney Rigdon" section, Rigdon seems to be blamed for the escalation of tensions between the communities. I'm sure this feeds into the biases of both the pro-Mormon camp (who would like to blame an "apostate") and the anti-Mormon camp (who would like to blame a Mormon). Isn't this overstating the influence of Rigdon's speeches quite a lot? If you have people being tarred and feathered on a regular, ongoing basis, perhaps a couple of speeches by a Mormon leader are not the most important precipitating event. (eg, the event in Independence, Missouri on July 20, 1833 where Edward Partridge and Charles Allen are tarred and feathered, the home and printing press of W W Phelps is reduced to rubble, and women and children are terrorized. cited in BH Roberts History of the Church 1:390-393)

A more balanced discussion of the causes of the tensions between the communities is needed. An example would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_%281838%29

From the section "Danite band and the Affidavit of Thomas Marsh" there is no mention of the fact that Marsh had just left the Mormon church. Since that would explain a potential bias on the part of the person swearing out the affidavit, the information should be included in the article. There is a reference further down the section to Marsh denying his affidavit later in life, after re-joining the Mormon church, so I suspect that the disclaimer existed earlier in the article's history and was removed by someone with a specific bias. As an earlier poster suggested, perhaps it would be a good idea not to go about removing chunks of history in order to support the bias of the editor.

From the section "Events at Gallatin," the article appears to have been strongly edited to reflect the bias of the editor. A more balanced version of the same events can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_(1838)#Gallatin_Election_Day_Battle

In the "Military Tribunal" section, most of the discussion of the accusations of rape is taken up by a quote disputing that the rapes took place. For reasons that have been discussed previously on this page, the emphasis on the denials rather than the accusations seems out of place and unduly biased. If so much space is to be devoted to denying the charges, perhaps more space should be devoted to spelling out what the charges were. In addition, the citation gives undue weight to a hearsay account of a non-Mormon elected official with a strong interest in denying the charges of rape against his constituency. No mention is made in the article about this conflict of interest.

From the "Mormon War" section, we find the unsubstantiated allegation: "One of the members of the Mormon Arson and Destruction Company was Thoret Parsons" First off, if the editor is suggesting that Parsons was a Danite, perhaps it would be better to just say so rather than using a slang term. Second off, this needs to be marked as needing a citation as to whether or not Parsons was actually a Danite.

50.10.37.107 (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)SCC

Citations

I added a citiation and reformatted existing ones to match in a new Notes section. I also added the text of the order itself. If this is too much then it could be removed, since relevant portions are quoted in the first paragraph, however, I do think that there is value in seeing the entire order with quoted sections in context rather than simply linking to an external site. Bochica 02:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article found at the source link of http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Extermination_Order_%28Mormonism%29 says it need to be transwiki'd out of that project, and suggest moving it to http://en.wikisource.org/ -- is anyone up to doing that task as part of the collaboration of the month? -- 65.101.29.133 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is very clearly against the LDS people. It says that the strong words of Sidney Rigdon made people leave the country. It doesn't mention Mormons and ex-Mormons were being killed, tortured and tarred-and-feathered on a daily basis. It also doesn't mention how many hundreds and hundreds of people died during the "relocation" to Nauvoo. And it barely even mentions what the article is supposed to be about; the extermination order that allowed Mormons to be hunted and killed on sight. It's disgusting that even now the LDS are still slandered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.191.246 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of Conflict?

For the second time in about as many days, I find a phrase in the Background claiming that "conflict between the Mormons and the Missourians began" with some event in 1838. I took the phrase out, when it claimed that the conflict began with the Gallatin election day riot. Now, the phrase has returned, claiming that the conflict began with the speeches of Rigdon. But, the beginning of the conflict between the two dates back to 1831, just after Joseph Smith stated that the return of Jesus was imminent and God's City of Zion would be near Independence. Mormons began to swarm into the area to prepare for Jesus' return, causing considerable friction with the people who already lived in the area. So, I don't believe the article should state that the conflict began in 1838. Pooua 04:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We probably just need to be more specific regarding what aspect of the conflict began on what day. According to historians, the physical conflict appears to have started with the Gallatin riot. Rigdon's speeches initiated a lot of agitation, but did not represent the beginning of direct physical conflict. Rigdon's speech was directed at the "mobs" - he had been tarred and feathered and apparently had pretty strong feelings about mob violence. Rigdon's speech frightened the existing Missouri settlers even more. A lot of Mormon settlers continued to move to Missouri (Zion), which also frightened the existing settlers because the Mormons were acquiring significant political power in the area. This was the major factor in the Gallatin riot. Bochica 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For it to get to the point where Gallatin happened, violence had already taken place. Rapes, tar and featherings, house burning and other mob activities had already occurred (some mormons did house burnings and other mob activity as well). Gallatin was the most public display as it was in daylight, not under the guise of mobbing at night. Gallatin was not the first of the violence, but the first open violence.

I've noticed that the article states that Rigdon was the first to use the word extermination, which is then used as a way to say the extermination order was a response to this. The Secret Contstitution was actually the first to use the term, and we should update to fix, as Rigdon's sermon wording was in response to it. -Visorstuff 14:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that BYU's online archive states that Rigdon's 4th of July speech "marked the beginning of the end of the Mormon colonies in Missouri." Apparently, the LDS branch makes Rigdon into their scapegoat for their troubles in Missouri. The fact that he was later excommunicated by Mr. Young makes him a likely candidate.

I don't know where I might claim the beginning of the end for the Mormons in Missouri is, but I am certain that the Mormons' troubles in Missouri did not start in 1838. I think the term I used in the article (though it was deleted by someone else) that Rigdon's speech marked the beginning of "the ultimate crescendo" in hostilities between Mormons and Missourians was accurate. Maybe that is too much "peacock" language, but it was accurate.

I haven't seen any good sources documenting the anti-Mormon Secret Constitution. Wikipedia does not have an entry for it. The sources for it on the Web that I have found are off-beat pro-Mormon sites (nothing even close to an authentic document). So, I doubt we could use that in this article. Pooua 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think i have a copy anymore, BH Roberts Missouri conflicts book has it in there. I don't beleive that Rigdon's speech was the cause of demise of the saints in missouri - largely based on the lack of literacy of the Missourians. Who would have read it once printed? If they were there, possibly affect them, but his speech was more the excuse used by those who marshalled the typical uneducated proletarian masses against the mormons. Rumor more than content was the issue. In any case, extermination was not a term that originated with Rigdon. -Visorstuff 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone apart from you, Visorstuff, claim that Rigdon's use of the word "extermination" was the first use of the term. I have not seen it in the article, nor do I see a reason to make it an issue. I also don't know what your source is for the literacy rate in Missouri, but the documentation used in this article shows that quite a number of Missiourians could read and write. Indeed, how would they read and sign the supposed Secret Constitution otherwise? Pooua 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Secret Constitution" or "Manifesto of the Mob" can be found in History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 371-376. (It is referred to as the "Secret Constitution" in Roberts The Missouri Persecutions, p. 74.) Interesting document - it seems that the Missourians were very worried about the Mormons bringing in "free people of color" into the state and agitating their slaves. The document states that the settlers would remove the Mormons "peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must." Bochica 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be the "History of the Church" vetted by Mormon authors, correct? That raises a red flag, to me. But, where did they get their info? What are their sources? Why can't I go to those same sources and get that information independently of the Mormon church? That is, if the Secret Constitution is not a Mormon document. Pooua 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the entire document, including some of the people who signed it. I suppose some of those corrupt, deluded, fanatical, weak, designing, odious, slave tampering Mormon dregs could have cooked this up...

We, the undersigned, citizens of Jackson county, believing that an important crisis is at hand, as regards our civil society, in consequence of a pretended religious sect of people that have settled, and are still settling in our county, styling themselves "Mormons;" and intending, as we do, to rid our society, "peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must," and believing as we do, that the arm of the civil law does not afford us a guarantee, or at least a sufficient one, against the evils which are now inflicted upon us, and seem to be increasing, by the said religious sect, deem it expedient, and of the highest importance, to form ourselves into a company for the better and easier accomplishment of our purpose—a purpose which we deem it almost superfluous to say, is justified as well by the law of nature, as by the law of self-preservation. It is more than two years since the first of these fanatics, or knaves, (for one or the other they undoubtedly are) made their first appearance amongst us, and pretended as they did, and now do, to hold personal communication and converse face to face with the Most High God; to receive communications and revelations direct from heaven; to heal the sick by laying on hands; and, in short, to perform all the wonder-working miracles wrought by the inspired Apostles and Prophets of old. We believed them deluded fanatics, or weak and designing knaves, and that they and their pretensions would soon pass away; but in this we were deceived. The arts of a few designing leaders amongst them have thus far succeeded in holding them together as a society; and since the arrival of the first of them, they have been daily increasing in numbers; and if they had been respectable citizens in society and thus deluded, they would have been entitled to our pity rather than to our contempt and hatred; but from their appearance, from their manners, and from their conduct since their coming among us, we have every reason to fear that, with but very few exceptions, they were of the very dregs of that society from which they came, lazy, idle, and vicious. This we conceive is not idle assertion, but a fact susceptible of proof, for with these few exceptions above named, they brought into our country little or no property with them and left less behind them, and we infer that those only yoke themselves to the "Mormon" car who had nothing earthly or heavenly to lose by the change; and we fear that if some of the leaders amongst them, had paid the forfeit due to crime, instead of being chosen ambassadors of the Most High, they would have been inmates of solitary cells. But their conduct here stamps their characters in their true colors. More than a year since, it was ascertained that they had been tampering with our slaves, and endeavoring to sow dissensions and raise seditions amongst them. Of this their "Mormon" leaders were informed, and they said they would deal with any of their members who should again in like case offend. But how spacious are appearances. In a late number of the Star, published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free negroes and mulattoes from other states to become "Mormons," and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors. It manifests a desire on the part of their society, to inflict on our society an injury that they know would be to us entirely insupportable, and one of the surest means of driving us from the country; for it would require none of the supernatural gifts that they pretend to, to see that the introduction of such a caste amongst us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed. They openly blaspheme the Most High God, and cast contempt on His holy religion, by pretending to receive revelations direct from heaven, by pretending to speak unknown tongues, by direct inspiration, and by divers pretenses derogatory to God and religion, and to the utter subversion of human reason. They declare openly that their God hath given them this county of land, and that sooner or later they must and will have possession of our lands for an inheritance; and, in fine, they have conducted themselves on many other occasions, in such a manner, that we believe it a duty we owe to ourselves, our wives, and children, to the cause of public morals, to remove them from among us, as we are not prepared to give up our pleasant places and goodly possessions to them or to receive into the bosom of our families, as fit companions for our wives and daughters, the degraded and corrupted free negroes and mulattoes that are now invited to settle among us. Under such a state of things, even our beautiful county would cease to be a desirable residence, and our situation intolerable. We, therefore, agree (that after timely warning, and receiving an adequate compensation for what little property they cannot take with them, they refuse to leave us in peace, as they found us—we agree to use such means as may be sufficient to remove them, and to that end we each pledge to each other our bodily powers, our lives, fortunes and sacred honors. We will meet at the court house, at the town of Independence, on Saturday next, the 20th inst., [July], to consult on subsequent movements. Among the hundreds of names attached to the above document were: Lewis Franklin, jailor; Samuel C. Owens, county clerk; Russel Hicks, deputy county clerk; R. W. Cummins, Indian agent; James H. Flournoy, postmaster; S. D. Lucas, colonel and judge of the court; Henry Chiles, attorney-at-law; N. K. Olmstead, M. D.; John Smith, justice of the peace; Samuel Weston, justice of the peace; William Brown, constable; Abner F. Staples, captain; Thomas Pitcher, deputy constable; Moses G. Wilson and Thomas Wilson, merchants. fn

Bochica 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for this document? Merely posting a bunch of words means nothing. Pooua 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully searched several copies of the so-called Secret Constitution or Manifesto of Mormon Opponents, but I have not found any mention of the word, "extermination" in it. Thus, even if the document is authentic, it does not provide evidence of use of the term "extermination" prior to its use by Rigdon. Pooua 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Associated articles

The article on General John Bullock Clark makes no mention of the role he played in carrying out the extermination order. I added a see also, but there really should be more of a description found there. -- 12.106.111.10 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was just a stub when I visited it. Are you familiar with stubs? I was disappointed that it was so brief, and a bit surprised that nothing in Wikipedia linked him to Order 44. I have not taken the time to add anything to it, but I am certain it could be expanded greatly. Pooua 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Haun's Mill

The Haun's Mill massacre is listed in the section marked "Consequences." However, the paragraph about the massacre admits that "the militia responsible for the massacre was not yet aware of the order at this time." Obviously, then, the Haun's Mill massacre WAS NOT a consequence of the Extermination Order. Therefore, it should be removed; it has no direct relationship to the specific event of this topic. Pooua 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

you are correct that the HMM is not a consequest, but the the non-prosecution of those involved in the HMM should be listed, as the government did not investigate because of the order. The context about what it is can be completely linked to the article on the topic. -Visorstuff 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

HMM should be explored in more detail in the article, as an example of the sorts of behavior that Mormons would expect from the anti-Mormon forces at that time. A number of entries in the existing article attempt to undermine charges by the Mormons that they were being mistreated and persecuted. If it is appropriate to include those entries, it is not clear why there is no place to explore HMM. Maybe it should be moved to a different section of the article, but its exclusion leads to such a distortion of the history as to render the overall article untrue. 50.10.37.107 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)SCC

"Rescission"

The entry says that the Order remained "active" until "rescinded" by Governor Bond in 1976. That is not accurate. The "rescission" had no legal significance, for the simple reason that the order was personal to Governor Boggs and to the officials (his appointees) to whom he issued the Order. It certainly had no legal significance after Boggs left office, and probably not after the main body of Mormons left the state -- fortunately, for the thousands of Mormons who traveled through or moved to Missouri not many years after the Order. To say the Order was "active" in 1976 is like saying that Lincoln's Civil War orders to General Sherman or General Grant are still "active" merely because there isn't some former "rescission" by Lincoln or some later president. Bond's order was a great piece of public relations, but should nto be describes as if it had some legal significance. Moappeals 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) moappeals

Nevertheless, that's what the governor did. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mormon Arson and Destruction Company

Is there more info on this? It's mentioned in the article as if it were something we all know already. I'd be curious to get some more info about this in the article, if any exists. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me how, but that appears to be a bit of vandalism that has remained in the article for some time. It has been removed. --^StormRider 19:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this bit of "vandalism" is back. I'm assuming this is a Danite reference. If so, why not just call Danites Danites? 50.10.37.107 (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)SCC

Incidents of Rape

The following IP editorial comment was removed from the article for discussion. WBardwin (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that LeSueur neglects to take into account the flaws in Charles Morehead's statement, reported in the 24 December 1838 issue of the Missouri Republican (a newspaper of suspect biases given the extreme anti-Mormon sentiment in Missouri), and that even if one report of rape did turn out to be false, in such a scene of chaos as reported in the "Millennial Star",<ref>''The Manuscript History of Brigham Young'', taken from the ''[[Millennial Star]]'', 1801-1835</ref> there can be no certainty that such horrors described by Roberts (whose sources are not given here) were not true. History and current events bear out that such horrors are in keeping with acts by individuals or groups in military forces anytime those forces are turned, without order, upon defenseless people. LeSueur also fails to take into account that those 'ravished to death' -- taking the phrase literally, in the English of mid-1800s America such as Pratt uses -- means that those subjected to such torture were dead and could not testify, and that families of victims or those victims raped (but not to death) would be much more hesitant at that time in history than today to speak, if they spoke on it at all, of what involved such "delicate" matters. Shame hides much from society. It is not, therefore surprising, that "[n]early all reports of rape are based on hearsay and rumors" -- one might say, on whispers.

If the article is going to use the space to describe the denial of rape by a suspect source, I don't see why we aren't also devoting space to the above-mentioned descriptions of Roberts. Roberts has a number of flaws as a historian, but I don't see any serious reason to doubt that he had sources, even if the cultural norms of the time would not allow him to cite them for fear of "shaming" the victims.

The events at the Hauns Mill Massacre demonstrate that rape was a common tactic used by the anti-Mormon forces. (Whether or not HMM's perpetrators knew about the existence of the executive order, their actions should reasonably be used to measure the lengths to which the anti-Mormon forces would go to expel the Mormons from their midst.)

50.10.37.107 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)SCC

I've marked as "undue weight" the following section of the LeSueur quote. I've ordered a copy of his book to see if this sentence accurately reflects his conclusions. "Charles Morehead, the representative to the state legislature from Ray County, said during a debate that “he was in Far West when one of these reports [of rape] was started, and he assisted in attempting to ascertain the truth, and the Mormons themselves admitted[undue weight?] that it was false”.[41][42]"

If someone else has a copy of his book, perhaps you can check and remove the sentence if necessary.

A second question is whether a Missouri state legislator's comment in the midst of a debate about what unspecified "Mormons" are reported to have told him should belong in a Wikipedia article. I'll see if there is further information supporting this quote when the book comes. LuckyFlamingo (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My copy of LeSueur arrived, and it is as I had remembered it. The footnote that is partially quoted in the section in the article was truncated right before LeSueur lists the sources for the two affidavits that he was able to find and which he judged to be credible.

Later, he also makes the observation that "The Mormons, of course, feared retaliation if they initiated complaints against non-Mormon citizens" (page 233).

Given that most of the accounts of depredations on both sides of the conflict were exaggerated, LeSueur's observation about exaggeration is probably correct. Roberts is probably not a good source for this information, either, as he has an unfortunate tendency to repeat hearsay as if it were an eyewitness account.

I think we're nearing a consensus on the format that the page should take in the long term, but I can't see any justification for leaving the "rape" section as it currently stands. Partial and out-of-context quotes of inflammatory material are the most despicable kind of POV-pushing.

I'm removing the Morehead claim of hearsay information on the grounds that the source is not credible for the reasons listed above. I'm also removing the inflammatory Roberts quote in an attempt to maintain balance and due to a lack of credibility of the source on this particular issue. (He's much stronger as a source of documentary and journal entry sorts of historical information, though there have been complaints about transcription errors on some of his material.)

I'm leaving the information about the looting of Far West for the time being, including the "violations of chastity" which are not necessarily allegations of rape. (There is certainly adequate documentary evidence of women being roughly handled or groped.)LuckyFlamingo (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph

should state what the order actually did instead of giving background on what it was a response to.  Aar  ►  23:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am very concerned about the neutrality of this article. The title isn't even neutral...the article probably should be referred to by the official name of the act, rather than the name given it by the Mormons. In that spirit, I have POV tagged it, and requested renaming. Please discuss. Purplebackpack89 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I'll leave it to others to create a dab page if it is needed. Also someone with knowledge of this should look at the redirects and see if they should go to this article or a dab page of some other article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Extermination order → Missouri Executive Order 44 — Title is not neutral, and document should probably be referred to by its official name. Even mentions in the lead that it is only called this by the Mormons. In addition, "extermination order" is probably too vague a title. Purplebackpack89 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• support very vague naming; could easily refer to Hitler's final solution, the decimation punishment of Rome, or no quarter, the action at Carcassonne, etc. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment this needs a dab page. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support There are no shortage of extermination orders, often of much greater severity. A more precise title would be appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This new title is the official title of the order, but it is not known by people or historians as such. The common name is the "Mormon Extermination Order", it is the only exterminiation order given in US history against any of its citizens. Anonomyous voters are not the ideal for gaining a consensus; those who are ignorant of the topic are even worse. I suspect this will be reverted to the more common name soon. -^StormRider 07:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be the only one in the United States, but there have been many others, and many more severe ones, in the history of the world. Not to mention that the title "Extermination Order" is misleading, it suggests a genocide, which Missouri Executive Order was not. Also note that RM procedure was perfectly followed, there was unanimous support for the move, and it was moved. So it probably won't be reverted, and it's far far too soon for another RM Purplebackpack89 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a very great leaps of logic here and no evidence given for other things. First of all, an Extermination Order is only that, an order given to exterminate a group. It does not mean an order was carried out, it does not mean a genocide took place; that is a leap of logic.

You continue to mention, as well as another in the vote above, that there have been many, a plethora, extermination orders. Could you please list them? Do you find it at all odd that in the United States of America an Extermination Order was issued by a state? Order 44 is an official title that is not known in history as such; however, if you state, "Mormon Extermination Order", people know exactly what you are talking about. The current title is meaningless; it would only be recognized by highly trained historians.

This is straining at gnats and swallowing camels. This single order in the entire history of the USA was directly, by state decree, against the Mormon people. Please explain how that is POV. I can provide hundreds of references for "Mormon Extermination Order" and the reason why it is called that it because it this order was against the Mormon people. -^StormRider 08:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First, in order to be open and honest, I will admit that my family was part of the LDS movement at the time of the "Extermination Order". Just to be upfront with any possible wp:conflict. However, I will put my 2 cents in.

I have always heard it called the "Mormon Extermination Order", not "Extermination Order". In fact, the first time I found this page (when it was called "Extermination Order"), I wasn't sure (until I started to read it) that I was in the right place. I agree with the move in that, as Purplebackpack89 said, "...there have been many others, and many more severe ones, in the history of the world.” However, ^StormRider is correct in that the current title "would only be recognized by highly trained historians." However, with the way the Extermination order page is set up, even a non-highly trained historian can easily find this page. The information can be found, so I don't see a reason to change it back.

However, being bold, I have created a redirect page from Mormon Extermination Order to this page. That is the name I have always heard it called. Even ^StormRider called it that twice, and "Mormon Extermination Order" only applies to this page, and not to other "Extermination Orders" in history. If I were to go looking for this page, that is way I would type in. Now anyone who is looking for this page can easily find it with ether "Mormon Extermination Order" or "Extermination Order.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Test, your redirect is perfectly acceptable. What is not as acceptable is questioning a properly-done movereq only a month and a half after it closed, as Storm is doing.

Storm, remember that other extermination orders need not be in the United States for the title to be ambiguous (global perspective). Other extermination orders are listed above and at extermination order; it is disrespectful for MXO44 to be mentioned in the same breath as the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. I fully stand by my point that "extermination order" is a misleading term; keep in mind that this is by no means the weirdest title on WP. I would doubt you could find "hundreds" of references for "extermination order" that are reliable and neutral. Purplebackpack89 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you said "What is not as acceptable is questioning a properly-done movereq only a month and a half after it closed, as Storm is doing." I thought I made it clear that I thought the move was correct as is.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You did. You're fine. The rest of my comment above is about Storm, and what he said above about me swallowing camels and whatnot Purplebackpack89 16:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. However, as far as I know it is always acceptable to discuss anything at anytime on WP talk pages, except for those listed at WP:TALKNO. Storm is allowed to question a properly-done movereq, but not to change it unless a new census is reached, or threw other Administrative or community interventions. I agree that the movereq was done properly, however, per WP Consensus a consensus can change. If he wanted he could open a new movereq, however, there are already three people (Labattblueboy, you and me) who would seem to oppose such a move, so it would seem a bit pointless to me, as the consensus seems to still be the same. Also, I have no idea what "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" means.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that discussion is acceptable and consensus can change. However, it is generally frowned upon to have a movereq less than three months after another movereq with a clear consensus. I could see three circumstances where the three-month rule could be violated:

1. There was no consensus
2. The movereq was improperly done
3. A lot of new information has come to light in a short period time

None of these seem to be the case with this movereq Purplebackpack89 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that none of those apply and the page was moved correctly, however, I don't see anything saying about "three months" or any other time frame on Wikipedia:Requested moves or Help:Moving a page. If this is true, perhaps it needs to be mentioned there.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"more commonly known as"

Trying to offer a WP:3O, before an edit war starts and someone violates WP:3RR, I noticed the back and forth edits around the words "more commonly known as" over the last two days. I agree with Purplebackpack89, in that "more commonly known as" is POVish. I think it's also probably Weasel words. Lastly, it really doesn’t add anything to the article so it really doesn’t need to be there ether way.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the ARTEST4ECHO that “more commonly” adds little or nothing to the article and sets off POV/weasel words red flags. I have probably written as much as anybody on the Missouri Mormon War and have contributed numerous photos from various locations since I am native to northwest Missouri. It should be noted that many of the “reliable sources” that have been used by many in the articles are official church documents and as such have an inherent POV. Ratcheting back some of the rhetoric and POV greatly improves the quality of the articles as the issues that were raised are quite interesting. There are two sides to the story and the church is not totally blameless. It should be noted that Missouri officials actually saved Joseph Smith from execution and allowed him to escape. Illinois was not so kind.Americasroof (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Structure of the Article"

This article presents a single narrative of the facts leading up to the 1838 Mormon War and its culminations in EO44 and the expulsion of the Mormons from Missouri. This narrative can be summarized as: 1) Sidney Rigdon shoots his mouth off 2) Thomas Marsh confirms the existence of the Danites (not sure why this is a central point of the article, meriting its own section--a reference to the Danites Wikipedia page ought to be enough) 3) We spend a lot more words describing allegations about how the Mormons burned Gallatin than the single word ("falsely") which admits that the allegations were untrue. 4) A compressed description of the military action around the battle of Crooked River and the timing of the notification to Boggs, resulting in the drafting of the EO. (This has been significantly improved by recent edits which have helped balance the tone of this section.)

Of these, only the fourth really belongs in an article about the EO. We could easily replace the other three points by alternative explanations which are explored in a more balanced way in the page dedicated to the 1838 Mormon War. For example, we could look at it in terms of Missouri as a precursor to Bleeding Kansas: 1) A large influx of largely abolitionist foreigners and northerners moved into Missouri, leading to fears that they would outnumber long-term residents and abolish slavery. 2) Frictions between these groups and the long-term residents led to armed conflicts. 3) Rumors of depredations by both sides became inflated. 4) Crooked River, etc

Or you could go with the narrative that you might get from an official Mormon church history: 1) Mormons came in and worked hard 2) They were successful because they spent their time and money improving their holdings rather than spending their money on prostitutes and alcohol. 3) Long-time residents became jealous, frictions led to armed conflicts. 4) Rumors of depredations by both sides became inflated. 5) Crooked River, etc

There is evidence (including evidence in the citations already attached to the article) to support all of these narratives. By Wikipedia guidelines, one single narrative should not be favored over other alternative narratives. 50.10.37.107 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)SCC

The section headings are not very helpful when looking at the history that led up to Boggs' order. The point of the information about Rigdon's speeches and the Danites is that there were tensions between the Mormons and the older settlers. On the other hand, there is absolutely no context about what sort of environment led to Rigdon's defiant statements in the July 4th speech or the formation of the Danites as a vigilante body. One is almost led to conclude that the Mormons walked into a wholly peaceful community, having formed an army for the purpose of driving out the older settlers.

Perhaps those two sections should be pulled in as sub-sections of a larger section discussing the relationships between the Mormons and the older settlers. Maybe "Tensions" would be a good title. For that to make sense, we would also need to add material on the other side of the question to improve the lack of balance in the article as it currently stands.

The quotes from Rigdon's speeches do not seem to be directly related to the executive order. Perhaps the text of the quotes would be represented better as referenced quotes in the footnotes, with a brief description of the importance of these speeches in the main body.LuckyFlamingo (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to re-structure some of the offending passages by adding context to the Rigdon speech, removing the assertion that Rigdon's speech marked the beginning of the 1838 Mormon War, and moving the events of Gallatin and Marsh into chronological order. I also added a stub paragraph regarding the expulsion of the Mormons from De Witt, which is referenced elsewhere in the article. Given the event's centrality to the narrative, I don't see how it can be left out.LuckyFlamingo (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I fear that Falm is attempting to gloss over some of the Mormons' actions, and vilify Boggs et. al Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you're getting personal. Is there a particular edit you have a problem with? Perhaps one of the Mormons' actions that I removed? Or the way I described the early settlers' fear of becoming a persecuted minority? Or the way I described how they considered the expansion of Caldwell to be bad faith? Perhaps the way I added information on Millport and Grindstone that wasn't previously in the old article? Or the way I actually explained the import of Rigdon's speeches, or documented motives for Marsh and added Hyde as a corroborating witness?

What I found appalling in this article was the way it had been butchered to remove large chunks of relevant history. I don't know who did that and won't be digging through the history to find out.

If you have a problem with the factual basis of anything I put in, or if you think I'm referencing improperly, bring it up. Otherwise, I have to assume it is you with the POV problem.LuckyFlamingo (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I be POV pushing? You've made dozens of edits to the article. I've hardly made any, and almost none that changed the content. But if you want me to expand on my earlier points, I will. The article over-emphasizes small events where Mormons were the aggrieved party, but doesn't mention as much the intimidation tactics employed by the mormons, and they attacked non-Mormons. Some of the stuff you've added would be better covered in other articles. Also, I disapprove of the way you're attempting to cite that "extermination order" is the right term...no wide scale extermination took place (that would be a genocide, comparing this to genocides isn't right). The upshot is that you appear to be crafting an article that's too biased in favor of the Mormons. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. We may never reach an agreement on what should be in the article, but it is a lot easier to discuss facts and how to present them rather than make assumptions about the motivations of other editors. I'll try to respond to your points and we can proceed from there.

1) I'm not arguing that "extermination order" is the correct term, just that it is the common term. If you look at the DeVoto reference, you will find that only two pages earlier, DeVoto refers to Joseph Smith as a "psychotic boy" and accuses the Mormons of election rigging (which I referenced directly in the "background" section). I have not come across a single reference that refers to the order as EO44 in preference to "extermination order". I absolutely agree that the Wikipedia voice should refer to it as EO44. If I accidentally slipped and referred to it as "extermination order" other than in quotes or in the context paragraph at the top, please point it out.

2) I outlined the reasons that the original settlers feared the Mormons, and documented the election rigging. I'm sorry if it wasn't direct enough for you, but I am trying to use NPOV. If we can come up with specific instances other than Gallatin/Daviess, those should be documented/included. DeVoto, who is no slouch historian himself, believes that the election rigging was the basic underlying problem, not a couple of speeches by a hothead, as was directly stated by the article before I started.

In general, I'm trying to go where the history takes me, based on solid references. Anderson's argument that EO44 was the culmination of a repeating series of four expulsions by the "expulsion party" seems to be founded in the history and more solid than the assertion that a couple of speeches provided all of the background necessary for the issuing of the order. I've tried to provide a description for the documented reasons why expulsion would have been viewed as appropriate by the "expulsion party." (I'll address the other concerns you raised in the other section.)LuckyFlamingo (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the recent edits actually be in 1838 Mormon War?

I appreciate the recent edits which have references. This article was supposed to specifically about the Governor's proclamation (which we should actually place in tact and unedited) however it now tells the entire Mormon War story and is thus redundant. All these edits should probably go into 1838 Mormon War which is the overview of the war. That article which has no inline references whatsoever is is sore need of updates. It was created early on in Wikipedia at a time when Wikipedia did not push the inline references so much.Americasroof (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the stuff that's been added has gotta go. Especially since most of the stuff that's been added here is favorable to the Mormon point of view; and doesn't mention the darker side of the Mormons in Missouri Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

LeSueur's narrative is only one historian's perspective, though it is one that should be (and has been) referenced throughout the article. Other narratives that have to be considered are the narrative expounded by DeVoto and others (ie, election rigging was behind the tensions), the role of Smith's revelations that the Mormons were fated to inherit Missouri with or without the cooperation of the residents, and Anderson's point that EO44 was not an isolated expulsion event.

I see the point about just baldly listing the intact EO44, with a note that it is commonly known as an "extermination order" or "exterminating order" and the paragraph about the rescinding of the order in 1976. The thing is, I think that would actually read badly in terms of not providing historical context. If anything, it would put the governor and his supporters in a worse light, by not explaining why they found it necessary to issue the order.

The way the article was before, with only the Rigdon speeches, Crooked River, and a description of Gallatin, was very POV. The fact is that there was an escalating cycle of violence, resulting from violent actions (and failures to act) by both sides.

If background is to be provided at all, it has to include the events of 1833. I've spent a lot of time reading contemporary accounts of the events (from both sides) in the past week, and 1833 is constantly referenced by contemporary newspaper accounts and letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyFlamingo (talk • contribs) 12:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't the events of 1833 have their own articles? What I think ought to be done is consolidate all the background into ONE section of three-four paragraphs, with a {{main|The articles releating to the background of MXO44}}. That would be more in line with summary style. Roof, what do you think about that? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the 1833 stuff is folded into the beginning of the 1838 article. (Probably for the same reason as I added it here--it is pretty much one continuous flow of events, with all the same people involved.)

I can see the point of limiting the scope of this article to a minimum of background. The hard part is selecting which minimum set of facts to describe. The way the article was, with a highly selected version of some of LeSueur's narrative, is no more balanced than an article made up solely of the official Mormon Church's history.

Maybe instead of attempting background, a better approach would be to limit the background to a single sentence or two, with links to the relevant articles (Mormon War 1838, Danites, etc). Strip out every last bit of historical narrative, including the Rigdon speeches, the Mormon War, Far West, and the attempted assassination. If you let any of the historical narrative in, you pretty much have to let in everything from 1833 on or else the article will not be balanced.

An article like that would consist of:

1) Summary paragraph (more or less like what is there now)

2) Background: "Executive Order 44 was issued by Governor Boggs of Missouri during the 1838 Mormon War to deal with what he perceived as a danger posed by Mormon attacks. The 1838 war ended with the expulsion of almost all Mormons from the state of Missouri."

3) Full, unedited text of the document

4) 1976 Rescission of the Order (more or less like what is there now)

I think where the article is running into trouble is with the attempts to provide a narrative historical context. I looked at several earlier versions of the article, and over its history, it has been slammed back and forth between unbalanced pro- and anti- Mormon versions. LuckyFlamingo (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The additions by Flamingo are referenced and much better balanced than what I've seen over the years. We've been talking for years about doing an article on the 1833 Jackson County events (article title would be City of Zion or some such). Early attempts on that article actually focused on the Independence years. Unfortunately that article currently has turned into a stream of consciousness. Since there's a lot of good information added here, I think the overview has been lost. We probably need the second paragraph summarizing the events (e.g., few Mormons were "exterminated" although they were forced to leave to leave the state and also balancing with motivation for the order being as a result of a perceived expansion of power).Americasroof (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds pretty balanced. I don't see how we can leave off a note regarding "also known as" for the "extermination order," but it can be balanced by pointing out that relatively few people were "exterminated" as opposed to "expelled" or "evicted." If we're going with a single sentence to explain the "perceived expansion of power" we probably have to allude more generally to something like the "growing electoral and economic impact" of the Mormon population. If we try to get into specific allegations of election rigging like those addressed by DeVoto, Arrington and others (esp in Daviess), I think we get lost in the weeds again trying to create balance. (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're pretty close to a consensus here. I'm not sure if there are other outstanding issues. If there are, they would be pretty much rendered null and void by the proposed change.LuckyFlamingo (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the diff for the page where it was recently drastically editing to reflect the above thread. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The background section is now too small & anemic. We need at least 3 full paragraphs containing at least 3-4 sentences each, not 4 sentences total in the entire section. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)