The End of the Mormon War

What is often called the Mormon War of 1838 began on August 6 of that year. (You can read about that in my August 5 posting.) That war ended soon after the “Haun’s Mill Massacre” that occurred 174 years ago today, on October 30, 1838.

In thinking about the Mormon War, the role of Alexander Doniphan (who is fondly remembered in this part of Missouri) is noteworthy. Doniphan, born in Kentucky in 1808, moved to Liberty and opened a law office in 1833.

Along with David Atchison, Doniphan served as a lawyer for the Mormons from the beginning of his practice in Clay County. He and Atchison, though, asked the Mormons to leave the county in order to avoid civil strife.

Subsequently, Doniphan was instrumental in organizing Caldwell County in 1836 as a place for the Mormons to live in peace. But he was also a brigadier-general in the Missouri state militia and was involved militarily in the Mormon War two years later.

On October 27, 1838, Governor Lilburn Boggs issued a statement to one of the generals in the state militia, declaring that the “Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary, for the public peace.”

Three days later, on that fateful October 30 afternoon, 240-250 Missouri militiamen descended upon Haun’s Mill, a settlement around a mill established in eastern Caldwell County in 1835–36 by Jacob Haun, an early Latter-day Saint settler.

By October 1838 there were around 50 Mormon families living around Haun’s Mill, and in the massacre there were 17 Mormons killed and several others injured. It is not clear whether the massacre was a direct result of the “execution order” issued by Governor Boggs three days earlier.

Soon after the Hauns’ Mill massacre, the Mormon headquarters in Far West surrendered, Joseph Smith and other leaders were arrested, and the Mormon War of 1838 came to an end.

Smith and several other Mormon leaders were court-martialed on November 1. Later that day Major-General Samuel Lucas, the commander of the Missouri militia, sent the following order to Brigadier-General Doniphan: “You will take Joseph Smith and the other prisoners into the public square of Far West and shoot them at 9 o’clock to-morrow morning.”

Doniphan refused to carry out that order. Subsequently, Smith and a few others were brought to a jail in Liberty, where they spent several weeks before escaping and fleeing to Illinois.

Now, 174 years later, a Mormon who has been a missionary and a “pastor” for ten years, is running for President of the United States. He may, or may not, win that election. But it is most likely that he will garner Missouri’s ten electoral votes.

One hundred seventy-four years is a long time, but it is still remarkable that a presidential candidate who is a faithful member of a religion that was once literally run out of the state will probably receive a sizeable majority of the votes in that state.

As most of you know, or can guess, I will be voting to re-elect the current President. For many reasons I will not and could not vote for Mr. Romney. But his being a Mormon is not one of those reasons.

Billy Graham and Biblical Values

Billy Graham, who according to the Gallup Organization was the seventh most admired person in twentieth century (by Americans), suddenly has become quite political. Earlier this month, Mitt Romney went to visit him and they prayed together—which certainly was not something unusual: Graham has known and prayed with every President from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

After his prayer with Romney, though, Billy is quoted as saying to Mitt, “I will do anything I can to help you.”

A few days later, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) changed a website article, removing the reference to Mormonism as a cult. The website previously read, “A cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith.” It went on to state, “Some of these groups are Jehovah’s Witnesess, Mormons, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Spritualists, Scientologists, and others.”

It may well be a good thing that the BGEA no longer considers Mormonism a cult. But the timing is certainly interesting: they made that change just a very few weeks before the election in which one of the candidates is a Mormon.

Then last week in the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, the BGEA placed a full-page ad that was an implicit endorsement of the Romney-Ryan ticket. The ad states:

The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren and this great nation is crucial. As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God.

But what are biblical values? The same Bible (Old Testament) that is used (by some) to condemn gays (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) also seems to accept or even to approve of polygamy (such as in the case of Jacob, for example). It is questionable to use the first to tout “biblical values” but disregard the many examples of the latter.

Or why are the two cited verses from Leviticus used to support a biblical value but the following verses are not? “Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that your poor neighbors may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit” (Leviticus 25:36-37).

Sanctity of life, I would agree, is certainly a biblical value. But as I explained in my October 15 posting, abortion done under the right conditions in the first trimester is not the “taking of life.”

Loving one’s neighbor as oneself, however, is unquestionably a biblical value if we take the teaching of Jesus seriously at all. Thus, by implication, such love would surely include such things as providing universal health care coverage and helping to provide for the needs of the poor as well as opposing the exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Sojourners has produced a very good voters’ guide (available at this link), one that includes many more vital biblical values than the narrow, and questionable, version offered by Billy Graham.

Mitt the Missionary

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is, as everyone knows, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, popularly known as the Mormon Church. There has, certainly, been discussion in some circles about Romney’s religion, but recently it has been a little-discussed matter.

I had not planned to make a blog posting about Romney’s Mormon faith. But in this week in the second presidential debate Romney himself brought the subject up. He said,

“My -- my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I -- I served as a missionary for my church.”

I know something about being a missionary, for June and I served as missionaries to Japan for 38 years. And I know a little about Mormons in Japan, for their main headquarters, and since 2000 their temple, in Fukuoka was within easy walking distance from where we lived for more than 20 years.

In spite of Romney’s statement that he believes “we’re all children of the same God,” there is little evidence that Mormons think that all of us are equally God’s children. Their missionary work is almost exclusively directed toward house-to-house visitation seeking to make converts.

From time to time they would come to our house, and telling them we were ourselves Christian missionaries did not always deter them from trying to give their proselytizing spiel.

In Japan, Mormons, along with members of the Unification Church (“Moonies”) and Jehovah’s Witnesses, are widely considered somewhat of a nuisance because of their aggressive proselytization. In fact, many traditional Christian churches in their PR materials usually include the disclaimer that they are not in any way connected with Mormons, Moonies, or JWs.

Because of the small percentage of Christians in the nation, there is generally a great deal of cooperation among Japanese Christians. Through the years I spent a considerable amount of time in various cooperative, ecumenical meetings.

But the Mormons were never there. Not only did they not seem to believe that the non-Christians in Japan did not believe in the same God, it seems that they did (do) not believe that even other Christians believe in the same God, at least not adequately in their view. 

During the 2½ years he was in France, which was (is) overwhelmingly Catholic, Romney’s work was primarily going from house to house seeking converts. And taking inspiration from the pop-psychology book Think and Grow Rich, he is credited with leading the Mormon missionaries in France to exceed their goal of gaining 200 converts in 1968.

Mitt Romney, left, poses with a friend in France in the 1960s

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/29/mitts-mission-in-france-then-as-now-romney-worked-methodically-to-convert-skeptics/#ixzz29n69gmK5

Last week Romney also said that “we have a responsibility to care for one another.” And no doubt there is considerable care given by Mormons to Mormons. But there is little indication that Mormons do much in society at large in the field of health care, education, or social service. Certainly that has not usually been evident in Japan.

Through the years, traditional Christian missionaries and the churches and organizations started by them have been widely involved in medical, educational, and a multitude of social service activities. But by and large Mormons have not been a part of that history.

And it is even questionable how much of Romney’s considerable offerings given to the Mormon Church can legitimately be called “charitable giving,” as a large portion of those gifts are used for building temples that only Mormons can enter and for efforts to make more converts for the Mormon Church.

The Mormon War in Missouri

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, popularly known as the Mormon Church, began in 1830 after Joseph Smith claimed to have received special revelations from God. The following year, many of his followers moved to Missouri and began to build up the City of Zion near Independence. In 1833, though, they were driven out of the Independence area and began to move north and northeast into Clay and Ray counties.

Adopting a proposal by Alexander Doniphan, in December 1836 the Missouri General Assembly divided Ray County into three separate counties. The middle part became Caldwell County, and it was to be a place for Mormons to live in peace. Most non-Mormons moved out, so the Mormons had almost the entire county for themselves.

In the fall of 1836 a large number of Mormons moved to the new county, and a town named Far West was founded as the county seat. By 1838 the new town reported a population of around 4,000, including such major figures of early Mormon history as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

The northern part of Ray County became Daviess County in 1836, and it was established for non-Mormons. But with the migration of large numbers of Mormons to Caldwell County, the Mormons began to expand northward.

Photo by June Seat, 6/30/12

In May 1838 Mormons laid out a town in Daviess County, a town that Smith named Adam-ondi-Ahman, proclaiming that it was the place to which Adam and Eve were banished after leaving the Garden of Eden (near Independence). He said it would be a gathering place on Judgment Day. Before the end of the summer, several hundred Mormons were living in the new settlement, which was just a few miles north of Gallatin, the county seat town which was founded in 1837.

The Gallatin Election Day Battle took place on August 6, 1838, when about 200 people attempted to forcibly prevent Mormons from voting in the newly created county’s first election. That skirmish is often cited as the opening event of the 1838 Mormon War. At that time, Mormons comprised about half of Daviess County’s population of around 2,000 and about one-third of the eligible voters.

The trouble started when William Peniston, a Whig candidate for the state legislature, sought to keep the Mormons from voting. He mounted a barrel and “denounced the Mormons as horse thieves, liars, counterfeiters, and dupes.” Soon a fight broke out resulting in several injuries, but no fatalities. The “war” that started that day continued until the first of November.

I have particular interest in the Mormon War in Gallatin and Daviess County for a number of reasons. My high school was in the same sports conference as Gallatin, and I have played basketball at the school there.

Also, part of the Seat family has lived in Daviess County. My grandfather George’s grandfather, Franklin Seat, migrated there with his parents and several siblings in 1842 before moving on a few years later to Worth County, where I was born. Earlier, in 1839, one of Franklin’s sisters married and moved to Daviess County, just the year after the Mormon War. Two other Seat girls married in Daviess County in the 1840s and lived the rest of their lives there.

The main reason I find the Mormon War of 1838 of considerable interest, though, is because Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate for President, is a Mormon. Given the persecution of the Mormons in their early years and the fact that they were completely driven out of Missouri in 1839, it is remarkable that a practicing Mormon could possibly be elected President of the United States this year.

Is Mormonism a Cult?

“Mormonism is a cult.” So declared Dr. Robert Jeffress, the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, when interviewed after introducing Gov. Rick Perry to the Value Voters Summit (VVS) held last weekend in Washington, D.C.

The VVS was sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, Liberty University, and other groups noted for their conservative religious and political stance. The flier advertising the event quotes Sean Hannity saying that the VVS is “the premier conservative event now in the country.”

All of the major Republican presidential candidates were there, as well as some sitting U.S. Senators and Representatives (all Republicans). But it was Rev. Jeffress’ statement about Mormonism which got the most press coverage as he puffed Mr. Perry and cast aspersions on Mr. Romney.

The next day a Thinking Friend sent me a link to “Mormonism Takes Center Stage,” an article by Rachel Weiner in the October 7 Washington Post. And he posed this question, “Is Mormonism a cult?”

Of course the answer depends largely on how the word cult is defined. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines cult as “a system of religious beliefs and ritual.” In that sense, of course Mormonism is a cult, as is every other denomination or religion.

But the same dictionary also gives this definition: “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.” This is most likely the view of Mormonism that Rev. Jeffress had in mind.

It is clear that Mormonism is not one of the historic, “mainstream” Christian denominations. It was organized in 1830, based upon special revelation received by Joseph Smith, who translated The Book of Mormon and began the first meetings that grew into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the official name of what we usually call the Mormon Church.

It is looking more and more as if Mr. Romney will be the Republican candidate for President next year. But does it make any difference if he is a Mormon, even if Mormonism could be accurately described as a cult in a negative sense? I think not.

There are no legal religious requirements for public office in the United States, and for good reason. Religious freedom is a longstanding, and important, principle of national life.

Al Smith was defeated in the 1928 presidential election partly because he was a Catholic. But as most people came to see after the election of JFK, it didn’t make any real difference in public policy for the President to be a Catholic.

And the same sort of thing would most likely be true if Mr. Romney should be elected President next year.

If Mr. Romney does become the Republican candidate for President, though, I won’t vote for him. (In fact, I am not likely to vote for any Republican candidate any time soon.) But it won’t be because he is a member of a “cult.”

I won’t vote for Mr. Romney because of his political ideas and the platform of the party on which he stands. And I hope that all voters will cast their ballots on the basis of political conviction and not because of religious, or any other type of, prejudice.