Talk:Danite

Reorganize Page

I think this page needs to be made more coherant. It isn't well organized. For example, Background of the Danites and the Battle of Crooked River could be merged with the prior Background paragraph. Unless someone objects, I will start first by putting the various paragraphs in better order then start merging. Jspice9000 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Avard's testimony

Information about the Danites that came out at Avard's court appearance must be a matter of public record. Characteristically, we hear that "Some have argued Avard's testimony was oportunist and his testimony was false" but we don't hear what Avard testified. To the cautious reader, this says as much about the Mormons as anything else in this extremely cautious article. Wetman 09:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good call, I'll add in the information - however, there's not a lot there. -Visorstuff 17:33, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excerpt from History of the Church

BoNoMoJo, I think that Smith's condemnation is integral to a NPOV article, but now the article is a lengthy excerpt of Smith himself writting. I think that only the most powerful statements should be quoted from the history, probably, "When a knowledge of Avard's rascality came to the Presidency of the Church, he was cut off from the Church, and every means proper used to destroy his influence, at which he was highly incensed and went about whispering his evil insinuations, but finding every effort unavailing, he again turned conspirator, and sought to make friends with the mob."

A lot of the rest can be dealt with in a quick paraphrase. "Joseph Smith condemned Avard in the official History of the Church, and claims the ill-concieved group disappeared almost as soon as it came into being, ect, ect." This is especially sensible because much of the material in the passage doesn't relate to Smith's condemnation. The first few paragraphs instead give background speculations of why Avard might have had this dangerous idea, something that can be elaborated on without quoting Smith. CHL 02:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I just haven't put time to it yet. Have at it if you'd like. —B|Talk 13:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Although Orson Hyde signed the affidavit regarding the Danites on October 24, 1848 after becoming disaffected from the church, by June 27, 1849 he had repudiated the affidavit and rejoined the church.

Expanding

As part of my general upgrade to Mormon War and related articles, I'm going to be expanding this article. I've attended a panel discussion between the leading scholars on Danites --- Bill Hartley, Steven LeSueur, Alex Baugh and D. Michael Quinn --- I'm going to outline points of agreement and dispute among them. Give me a sec, while I'm working on this. Thanks. --John Hamer 16:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that was a bunch of work. --John Hamer 02:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poor Changes

I'm sorry to return to see a mass of biased changes to this article. The tone of the apologetic changes is set with the reference: "(For more information and discussion on the Danites (and comparison of the different historical accounts' integrity), see Jeff Lindsay's analysis." Jeff Lindsay is not a historian; he is an amateur apologist whose work is extremely biased.

I can list the rest of the errors at length, but overall, I'd propose that we revert this article to its Sept. 2005 state. --John Hamer 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is full of POV. A revert or major revision is definitely in order. Mapache 02:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should pared down dramatically to facts acknowledged by the Mormon church or otherwise publicly documented, i.e. dictionary length of 3 or 4 sentences. Then a very brief statement alluding to rumors and secrets but capped with the disclaimer "The truth of such rumors will never be known, by definition of such so-called secret societies and conspiracy. All details in public circulation are but speculation. More importantly such details are not relevant and should not be of any concern to the general public and those who have not actually become involved. As such, references to Danites in works of fiction should be considered completely and uniquely defined in and for the purposes of that particular work." 69.23.124.142 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a Dissenter?

Several Wikipedia articles mention Mormon dissenters, but never explain the term. The result must be that the reader misses much of the meaning of the conflicts Mormons had.

Mormons consider any criticism of their religion to be persecution. Pointing out faults in Mormonism is, to them, morally the same thing as torturing innocent people. And, so, a dissenter to them is one of the vilest persons, worthy of whatever action necessary to rid the community of him, whereas, to a normal person, a dissenter could be anyone who has a difference of opinion. So, when a normal person reads that the Mormons kicked out dissenters, it is easy to malign the dissenters by claiming that they were threatening the lives of the Mormons, when, in reality, all they were doing was calling Joseph Smith's bluff. Pooua 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE:

I find it appalling that someone could make such general statements that in no way apply to the whole of a group. "Mormons consider any criticism of their religion to be persecution. Pointing out faults in Mormonism is, to them, morally the same thing as torturing innocent people. And, so, a dissenter to them is one of the vilest persons, worthy of whatever action necessary to rid the community of him".....where did you get that one from? I'm Mormon and never think when I read about faults in my religion that that person who wrote it is "evil." Never in all my life has my religion ever taught that it is appropriate or acceptable to rid the community of anyone just because they state their opinion or really for any reason. I think it’s just silly to make such biased conclusions. It is true however that some dissenters where treated badly...I believe that then and now the people weren't perfect. There are still Mormons who are good and bad people...you have to strive to live the doctrine which entails being good, truthful, honest, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.227.139.19 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain specifically what menace Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and Lyman E. Johnson posed to the Mormons? Why were these men run out of Mormon-controlled territory?

You also deleted my paragraph on the mob, without any explanation or notice that you did so, and you made significant changes as an anonymous poster. These two acts on your part cast doubt on how open-minded you truly are.

In answer to your question, where I get my ideas about Mormon censorship, I get them from the historical record, my own personal experience with Mormons, and the experiences of many other people who have described their interactions with Mormons. But, don't worry; I will make certain that whatever statements I make in the article have citations to back them up. Pooua 05:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question about "what menace Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and Lyman E. Johnson posed to the Mormons." Lets start with Lyman Johnson - threatened to kill Smith. Was involved in the tar and feathering of Sidney Rigdon. Phelps: His testimony combined with Thomas Marsh's led to the extermination order. In fact, he said he would be willing to kill smith if he had the chance. There is a beautiful story about Smith forgiving him during the nauvoo timeperiod for this - you should read the leter here. Shall I go on to the others threats?

You are right. Mormon history is open to all to read. It is not hidden. I find it strange that folks think it is censored, though. Those who make those claims do so out of ignorance. Anyone can walk into the church archives and do research on any topic. Its all there. The censorship you speak of must be correlation - using official doctrines instead of opinions. making sure that the history taught can be corraberated from multiple sources rather than just one journal entry. Church history is anything but censored. And of course in sunday school you'll be told faith-promoting experiences rather than faith-demoting ones or mysteries. How often do you talk about the talking donkey in numbers or that God told the israelites to kill all the amorites. Or how about your own church history? That the southern baptists split from the northern baptists over ministers in the south wanting slaves, not wanting to educate blacks and the doctrine of the curse of cain, and that there were different heavens for blacks and whites (talk about a censored history - they voted to allow desegregated congregations in the same decade that mormon ordained blacks to the priesthood, but officially call Mormons racist)? What about the inquisition? The presbyterian racial views on blacks? The methodist organized crime rings? The mob activity and forced conversions of early Assemblies of God and Church of Christ? Do you study this in your church? I don't in mine either. I have to look at journals and other books for those, just as I do in my own faith. Every organization has people who are imperfect, and Mormonism claims stronger than other groups that its people are not perfect - we need the savior to save us from our sins. At least thats the Mormonism I know and that Joseph Smith taught. -Visorstuff 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From what little I know, Mormonism is not much different than 18th century devout Catholics. There is a whole hierarchy of dissent depending on the level of authority and personage with whom you are disagreeing. In either case, directly disagreeing with the Pope or Grand Prophet on church doctrine and policy is at least social suicide and often fiscal suicide -- neither of which actions will be repudiated by the church and in fact might be commanded. On occasion the local town personalities might take things to serious physical harm without official direction, and official regrets may or may not be whole-hearted depending on the form and terminology of dissenting opinion (i.e. calling either Satan's spawn is not likely to result in a scathing repudiation of vigilante action). That is dissent with lower church officials or general assembly doctrinal changes is much less serious though it might place you in some disfavor with the more devout locals. How serious the consequences were depends on how business and social power is distributed with respect to that leader (i.e. minor social tiff up to need to leave town now with clothes on back). Catholicisn has lost this power of fiscal ruin over dissenters in most of the whole today but I suspect social ruin is still quite possible in much of South America and rural Europe.(talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "the mob"?

Likewise, early Mormons often talked about mobs, and the need to fight the mobs. But, what is this mob, and what did they do that required physical violence against them. Mormon apologists would like the public to believe that the mobs were inherently, physically violent, when, in reality, the mob was simply anyone who opposed them for any reason and in any way. The Mormon leadership would not tolerate any kind of criticism; the penalty for it was as much violence as required to silence the opponent, even if it meant death. Many people in Missouri, Illinois and Utah fell victim to this principle, "put under the sod" for criticizing Mormonism. Again, Mormons speak of mere verbal criticism as if it were physical, lethal force. In their minds, critics endanger the souls of the Mormons. Consider how differently this understanding changes the meaning of Rigdon's 4th of July Oration, in which he states, "And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination." He means, anyone who says anything critical of Mormonism or challenges its doctrines or its leaders is going to be attacked physically. Pooua 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with most your characterizations. Ochlocracy was a mainstay of the American fronter experience, which included Missouri during this time period. Mobbing actions taken by (mostly Southern) early Missouri settlers on those they perceived as dangerous outsiders (mostly Northern/New England &/or new immigrants) are a matter of historical record. Their reaction to the Mormon settlers is certainly not unique -- Bleeding Kansas is another example of Missourian-style methods of settling disputes. These are but two examples of why the term "Missouri ruffian" is so readily found in accounts from and about that era.

With the polarization that occurred between the origional settlers and the Mormons in Missouri, it is hardly surprising that those that became disaffected (for what ever reason) with one group moved into the camp of the other group. This was not so much a matter of a clash of religions doctrines, criticism of beliefs, or perceived disloyalty to leadership. The issues were primarily: (1) economic - the Mormons tended to trade primarily within their own community, and through their cooperative efforts became comparatively much better off than the earlier settlers in a short amount of time; (2) political - Mormons tended to vote in reliable blocks, and as their numbers increased they were becoming more influential in local and state politics (this is one reason why the Gallatin election day battle had such as strong impact, as Mormons saw their being blocked from voting as political oppression, and those that were stopping them saw the Mormons resistance as proof of their suspicions that the Mormons wanted to "take over"); (3) cultural - while not necessarily outright abolitionists, the Mormons generally came from non-slave holding regions of the the US (and the world) and could not be considered supporters of that institution, which, along with their religion branded them as "other"; (4) social - the Missouri Compromise was still a fairly recent event, and the possibility that a large block of voters in Missouri might be ambivalent or even hostle to practice of slavery was not considered tolerable (two examples of intolerance of any abolitionist ideas by Missourians neatly bookend the Mormon War in the form the 1820 Missouri state constitution requirements to exclude "free negroes and mulattoes" from the state, as well as the Missourian involvement in the Kansas disputes).

You are correct that Mormons in Missouri did get caught up in the "us v. them" mentality of the day (although based on the the historical record, to a lesser degree than those that opposed them), but taking the Danites, the Mormon War, and the Extermination order out of the broader historical context does very little to help anyone understand what really happened. Characterizing "the mob" as just be a bunch of good ol' boys that didn't much take to Mormonism and the Mormons as a dangerous group that couldn't tolerate dissent is about as even-handed as characterizing the KKK's reaction to the Civil Rights movement in the 60's as just trying to put a bunch of uppity blacks back in there place. -- 12.106.111.10 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't characterize the Missourians as saints, by any means. It should seem odd, though, that the Mormons were hounded by angry crowds in New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and further ran into conflicts with the U.S. government even in Utah. Obviously, you would be wrong to claim that Mormon conflicts were nothing more than clashes with intolerant Missourian bigots. It is much more reasonable to look for what it was about the Mormons that alarmed such a wide variety of people, and why we don't see this clash today. When you answer those questions, you will realize that Mormonism has undergone radical changes over the last 170 years, or else it could not be tolerated in our society even today. Therefore, the editors who write this article as if the Missouri Mormon War was a fluke, or the Danites were rogue agents, or the Mormons were peaceful, harmless people who were martyrs to their cause, are wrong-headed and misleading--particularly when Brigham Young himself claimed that the Danites were still active in Utah in the business of killing Mormon enemies. Pooua 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure the point of all of this dialogue - it is not neccessarily there to help improve the article - however as you brought it up, i'll address it and then move on. The various groups called "danites" are much more complicated than you think, and should not be confused with destroying angels, blood atonement, or the utah war. These are completely seperate topics. Now on to missouri. Talking about fighting or defending one's family from "the mob" was not unique to Mormons in missouri. And Mormons were not the only group fought by Missourian mobs between 1830-1880. I do find it disturbing that the Missourians of the time tended to be much more individually violent to "innocents" in their mob activity than the other groups. Public rapings, tar and featherings were not done by the other groups, but both sides burned homes, fields and fued-like militia skirmishes that took place group against group in open invitation.

Mormons were hounded by angry crowds in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois for seeminly quite different reasons. New York because some locals thought smith still had gold, public gatherings and the book of mormon. Pennslyvania because of "treasure-seeking" and blasphemy that the pious state didn't like including having a prophet and his saying he saw jesus. Ohio becuase of the kirtland safety society and united order title disputes, Missouri because of the mormon voting bloc (over issues such as slavery, militia organization, adultry being legally enforced - and other northern sentiments), vast land acquisistions, the zion concept and of course retaliation against group violence. Illinios because of polygamy, the nauvoo charter and smith's growing political power. Other religious groups were forced out of various places - look at who took over the city of Nauvoo after the Mormons left? A utopian group who had to resettle. They were forced to their situation as well. Look at how Texas, Pennsylvania, New England and New York were settled. Groups who were forced from their homes multiple times. i'm not saying Mormons were or were not innocent, what i am saying is that your seemingly complaints of the article are based on you imposing your current world view on the time, rather than letting the time speak for itself.

I'm suprised at your lack of reading of primary sources available on Mormon history and your lack of understanding of what really took place. Was some of the issue mormon's faults? Of course. But "Mormons speak of mere verbal criticism as if it were physical, lethal force." I have a list of over 200 Mormons who were killed or died due to Mob violence in Missouri. To them it wasn't "verbal criticism," it was more. It was being strapped to a bench and raped by ten men until death. It was being dragged across ice until the head was split open. It was being tied up and dropped into a river until they drowned. It was being shot while trying to escape a burning home. It was dying from exposure after a home was burned, or of starvation because you were kidnapped away from your mother's breast and left to die in the wood. It was being shot while defending your mill. it was being shot at point blank range so that the nit wouldn't grow to become lice. I'm not excusing what the mormons did, I just find your conclusions very ignorant of Missiouri and Mormon history very ignorant and surface. Ochlocracy was part of living west of the Appalachians.

The mob was much more than "simply anyone who opposed them for any reason and in any way." Nor today do most members of the church feel that criticism and Anti-Mormon activism are the same thing. Someone who disagrees with me on a doctrinal matter is someone who disagrees. Someone who criticized because of same-sex marriage or some other policy of the church is someone who criticizes. Someone who says we've "changed history" is someone who hasn't read multiple primary sources. Someone who thinks the godmakers is slightly factual is someone who is misguided and completely uninformed. Yet they are still not Anti-Mormon. Someone who burns temple garments or yells at Mormons and tells them they are going to hell because they read the book of Mormmon is someone who I consider anti-Mormon.

Also, curious if you have a source for Young claiming that Danites were killing mormon enemies? The only Brigham quote I have on the Danites is as follows (interestingly talking about the violence that still took place in Missouri even after the Mormons left):

Do you ever reflect upon the matter? Look at St. Louis. More murders have been committed there in almost any few days than have been committed in this Territory since it was organized. It is customary there to have murders committed almost daily; but we, above all other people, ought never to have such a crime committed in our midst; and we never have had, so far as the Latter-day Saints are concerned. I will now tell you something. It is a secret; and I wish you to keep it to yourselves. There have been men here who have had their plans arranged for robbing; and I will take the liberty to say that, when we find them, "judgment will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet." Those are my feelings, and I express them plainly, that the good and honest may be able to pass from the Eastern States to California, and back and forth, in peace. And when a "Mormon" unlawfully disturbs anybody, I say, let him be overtaken by a "Vigilance Committee." And when mobocrats come here, they will find a "Vigilance Committee." Now, listeners, send that to the States, if you wish. I want the people in the States to know that there are a few poor curses here, and also to know that we do not want a gang of highwaymen here. And I say to all such characters, if you come here and practice your iniquity, we will send you home quick, whenever we can catch and convict you. I wish such characters would let the boys have a chance to lay their hands on them. If men come here and do not behave themselves, they will not only find the Danites, whom they talk so much about, biting the horses' heels, but the scoundrels will find something biting their heels.

"Catch and convict"-ing highwaymen is much different than "Danites were still active in Utah in the business of killing Mormon enemies." remember, the law enforcement in Utah, was under the direction of Hosea Stout - who was a celebrated Danite from the Missouri period. Most police in Utah were called Danites as a result by the people here for many years - not becase they were violent, but because they were led by Marshall/Sherrif Stout. I'd wager that the term Nauvoo Legion caused more fear among Mormon in Utah than the term Danite in the 1850-70s. After all, the Nauvoo Legion "Sleepeth but never dies."

You also say "It is much more reasonable to look for what it was about the Mormons that alarmed such a wide variety of people, and why we don't see this clash today. When you answer those questions, you will realize that Mormonism has undergone radical changes over the last 170 years, or else it could not be tolerated in our society even today."

Let's see what changes we've made. No big groups practice the united order, and...we don't do polygamy. And the Church government and territorial government are now seperate. What is the point? When you look at how many people refused assistance during the Katrina disaster from the LDS church becuase they were "racist mormons" you wonder if it really is "tolerated" as much as it should be. or when an average of three missionaries are killed each year around the world because of being missionaries. Mormons may have softened their speech, but the church is not that "radically" different from the 1840s.

Let's get back to the article at hand and if you have sources, not just opinions, add in more detail. If not, the discussion doesn't move the article forward. -Visorstuff 01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I have backed up my contributions to the articles with source citations. OTOH, several of the apologetical statements in Mormon defense lack details and citations. When I have hunted down the specifics, it has changed the accounts drastically, clearly showing that the Mormons were not pacifists, sometimes were the first to call for blood, and some of the editors of these articles are (to be charitable) incorrect. You, for example, were making a big deal about the Missourians using the word "extermination" before Rigdon did; it turns out your statement was incorrect: the "Secret Constitution" or "Manifesto of the Mob" did not use the word.

Don't worry about my sources. You will see them when I edit the articles. Pooua 07:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pooua, i don't recall that anyone ever claimed that mormons were pacifists, did they?

BTW - I haven't noticed your contributions to this article, I've just noticed your generic uninformed comments on this talk page. I've not looked at the edit history - perhaps i should.

I'm still curious about your statement above that Young said the danites were killing in Utah. It is not in the current version of the article that i've seen. Perhaps you have a source, but dont throw the "your wrong about extermination per this talk page" at me when you are doing the same with that comment - both are unsourced and that is why they are on this talk page and not inserted in the article. As for the extermination word, I am sure in my research (although remembered the source incorrectly), and I'll dig it up just for you, however, this article is not a focus for me. I will track down the reference for you at some point, but if I remember correctly, there was a paper on the useage of the word and why it became a focal point for the groups. Having spent more than 15 years studying and writing on Mormonism and the latter day saint movemement from an academic perspective, I think i know a little bit about the movement and its history. -Visorstuff 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The mob experience had much to do with the illiterate, early settlers opposing any organized group moving into their territory. The reason being that illiterate types often were not sure they had proper legal deed to their property. Often they didn't. Land office scams were common if they knew filing was needed. Many settled during French ownership. Thus the Mormon title fights weren't just with apostates but with people the Mormons had legally but "unfairly" forced off property. The successful Mormons, being a solid organize block, were actual economic threats to near by towns and hysterically seen as property threats even by those with proper deeds. Just a more eastern example of the famous "range wars" of the West.

As an interesting side note Missouri didn't actually hold many slaves. The Missouri ruffians actually were opposing invasion of the industrial politics of the North in any form. The slave laws were more of an extended middle finger than a practical concern. Keeping freed slaves out was in anticipation of their getting the vote via federal law and flooding the voting booths under Northern influenced politics. Mormons were of course gathered from the Industrial Northern states and brought many northern political ideas besides abolishment. Basically redneck politics versus city slickers (con-men who might take your land via sleight of hand) politics. All in all there were many practical reasons that the Mormons were considered a sizable invading army though without any particular intentions on that score themselves. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What Is The Basis For Claiming the KSSB Would Have Succeeded?

The article currently states in the Background section, "Kirtland Safety Society Bank; if the shareholders had paid in full their true share amount to the Society, it probably would have been successful." What is the basis for claiming that it would have been successful? Pooua 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is not wise to have in the article, even if it were true - as it is a judgement call. Perhaps instead the sentence should say it "failed because of speculation and credit issued to shareholders not being backed with hard collateral or funds" or something like that. -Visorstuff 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a judgement call at best. If memory serves me correctly, there was new banking legislation enacted that probably contributed to the failure. I'll look into this and provide more details. Jspice9000 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I've made a number of minor edits in this section and added a link to the Panic of 1837. Jspice9000 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How Does Background Fit?

The section titled, "Background" gives an account of the Kirtland Safety Society anti-bank fiasco and the resulting tensions between so-called apostates and Mormon leadership, but absolutely nothing in the article anywhere draws a definite connection between those unfortunate events and the formation of the Danites. What are we being told in "Background"? That the Danites were specifically for the purpose of preventing dissent among Mormons, even when (or especially when) the leaders screwed up? I doubt that very many here would agree with that association. I have not read anything that suggests that the Danites existed specifically because of the events in Kirtland. Rather, the Danites formed to enforce Mormon law, first on Mormons, then on non-Mormons. The events in Ohio provided Joseph Smith with important lessons, but were only part of the motivation behind the formation of the Danites. The Danites were not merely for the purpose of enforcing church discipline amongst the Mormons, but for the purpose of physically attacking any threat to the will of the Mormon leadership, whether from Mormons or non-Mormons. Pooua 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes in Blood Atonement Section

I am planning to add a few more quotations to the section about rumour involving the Danites and blood atonement. These are a variety of quotations from Brigham Young in which he publicly and privately denied the existence of the Danites. These quotations add to the article in that they are said within months before and after of his comments about a "vigilance committee" and Danites "on the horses heels." What they show more than anything else is that Young's mentioning of Danites in this context is sarcasm.Panbobor (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a few more linguistic changes in this section to provide a better flow.Panbobor (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)\

I changed most of your edits because all you did was add a bunch of POV mormon propaganda. I'm away from my personal library now on a public computer, but I am going to do more extensive work on the section because anyone who reads anything outside of Deseret publishing knows that facts, and obviously you don't see a need to think for yoruself. I will cite the changes when I return home. 157.182.98.27 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that almost all of my quotations are from original sources such as journals and newspapers. Otherwise they come from reputable historical journals and books. If you want to check the citations, please do by all means. I'm perfectly willing to allow for other points of view, but I'm also interested in good history. Please, tell me you can prove that "blood atonement" was put into practice which your edit seems to suggest. If your edits turn out to be some anti-Mormon rant based on the biased rubbish frequently published as objective Mormon history, I will be extremely dissapointed. Now, if you want to place quotations from William Smith's accusations (hopefully you know who that is) and claim that the existence of the Danites in Utah is disputed, I might have slightly more respect for you, although William Smith hardly seems like the most reliable source.Panbobor (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that I didn't remove your quoted sources. What I removed was mainly your Mormon POV commentary that was strewn throughout your edits. Please WP:AGF and don't accuse me of anti-mormon propaganda. Just because it's not mormon-approved doesn't mean it's anti-mormon. Please check your mormon POV at the door, we dont need anymore editors like you around here. 157.182.97.163 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss changes in a dignified manner if you would like. I will remind you that you are the one who began by accusing me of, what was it, oh yes, not being able to "think for myself." I can appreciate that not everyone will agree with me or my conclusions. However, it is you that began in a rather bigoted and narrow-minded tone. My conclusions are based upon sound research and respected sources. Just because you don't like my conclusions doesn't automatically make them wrong or unfounded. Now, can you tell me precisely what you disagree with without reverting to attacks on my intelligence or my character? Or do we have to call each other names just to keep things interesting?Panbobor (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately wikipedia is not a place to write your own conclusions. No one here is really interested in what you think. If you want to use published research that is fine, but coming to your own conclusions, even if it is based on published sourcs does not fly here. I suggest you become more familiar with wikipedia policies, specifically No Original Research before you ocntinue to do anymore extensive editing.157.182.99.75 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern for objectivity on a site such as wikipedia. Ultimately, the problem becomes that on such a contraversial subject as the Danites, etc, it is virtually impossible to not let a point of view slip through no matter what one does. The facts and their interpretation are, after all, disputed, and do not necessarily speak for themselves. This is the general problem of history. Even the selection of particular research over other research for an article such as this necessarily betrays a certain point of view. Were there Danites in Utah, or weren't there? It depends what you mean by the term and who you talk to. The Danite Band of 1838 most likely did not exist anymore, even though the national press continued to eat the rumour up and novelists wrote reams of fiction on them. But even if the Danites did not exist, was there violence in Utah? Sure, welcome to the wild west. But who perpetrated it and for what reason? Again, depends who you ask. Next the question: does every point of view, no matter how far fetched, need to be thoroughly explored in order to make a wikipedia article valid? Who judges what gets to be discarded? I have written quite a few wikipedia articles and have tried to give both sides of the story in each. I guess I'll just drop a few more footnotes in this article.Panbobor (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

I have tagged this page because of serious POV errors. I have been editing as an anon at school (I don't sign in on public computers) to try and clear some up but it is quite a large amount of POV, so I have tagged to draw multiple viewpoints in and better this article. I don't feel that me trying to edit the whole thing myself will do any good because it probably won't solve much. There needs to be different minds working on this to make it a better article. As of now it reads much like a pro-mormon stance and only gives one side of the story. As Panbobor mis-stated above, it is not the decision of anyone here what facts should or shouldn't be included. We are not to input our "own conclusions" but to state the facts from all sides of the story and let the reader decide for theirself. As of right now that is not being done and the page reads like a poor pro-mormon essay on the danites. I hope this draws in other editors to help contribute to this article. JRN (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

JRN, this is not a topic in which I possess a high degree of knowledge. However, I can always support the ongoing effort to achieve and/or maintain a neutral article. I will continue to observe the article and assist as I can. I would encourage all editors to use reputable references. If you think your edit is going to be controversial, then talk about first on the discussion page. Be knowledgeable about the references used; are they peer reviewed, worthy of being cited, etc. Mormonism can be a highly controversial topic with a plethora of material, both pro and con. However, both sides suffer from bad material. It is difficult to find actual historians that have written about topics rather than apologists and polemics; both should only be used judiciously. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism controversial??? Surely you jest. I never would have guessed...JRN (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew you would be surprised even astonished with this bit of news. However, now that you know, won't it be fun. However meager my contributions, I take heart in that even small gestures are appreciated by others. G'day mate. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The writing style is very weak which should be easily cleaned. I've started to fix things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspice9000 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Excommunication

This seems contradictory to us.

"Thomas B. Marsh, former President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was excommunicated when he wrote and spoke against the church after he had left the church."

How can someone be excommunicated after he has already left the church. Isn't that like firing someone who has quit. I think this needs to be changed but I wanted a different POV on it. Thanks JRN (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch; this is poorly worded. I suspect that Marsh ceased to worship with the saints and then became openly hostile to Joseph Smith and the church, which then resulted in his excommunication. Do you know the history well enough to confirm that and then edit the article so that the statement is more logical? If not, I may be able to do it later this week, it will take some checking of references. Good work. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar offhand but I'll check my sources. I suspect that you are probably right though. JRN (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording aside, it is standard practise for Mormons to excommunicate members that no longer attend services or other activities if they have committed an offense that they deem punishable by excommunication. It may not mean much to the person that left their congregation, but Mormons do feel strongly about this issue. From the Church Handbook of Instructions, 1998:

...Excommunication

A person who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church. Excommunication is the most severe Church disciplinary action. As directed by the Spirit, it may be necessary for: 1. Members who have committed serious transgressions, especially violations of temple covenants (see "Considerations in Church Discipline," pages 103-4). 2. Members who have been disfellowshipped and have not repented and for whom excommunication seems to offer the best hope for reformation. 3. Members whose conduct makes them a serious threat to others and whose Church membership facilitates their access to victims. 4. Church leaders or prominent members whose transgressions significantly impair the good name or moral influence of the Church in the community that is aware of the transgression....Jspice9000 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Danites as enforcers

This section is very weak. Clearly a POV conflict here. What were they enforcing and how were they doing the enforcing. I'll dig up some references to fill this in, but we need much more or this section should go. Jspice9000 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding Stormrider's 8/11/2008 edit "reworded; deleted POV; needs references"

Regarding this diff--

"periods of conflict and violence with" changed to "periods of violence and conflict from" (my emphasis)

"this era of pacifism was coming to an end" changed to "this era of pacifism resulted in the continuing persecution of the Latter Day Saint people"

Comment: These two changes seem designed to cast the LDS people as victims with absolutely no responsibility for what happened. I don't see the original text as having been biased against the LDS, but the changes appear to introduce a POV.

• Response - do you have references for where the violence was coming and with whom? Maybe explain it fully. Smith pacificism did not stop the violence against the Mormons; to the contrary, the violence continued to grow and members were becoming comfortable with the concept of protecting their rights.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm all for fuller explanations. The language was added recently by Jspice9000. I will seek his input. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Joseph Smith, Jr. and Sidney Rigdon of the First Presidency lost control of the headquarters, including the Kirtland Temple, to dissenters led by Warren Parish. Smith and his followers having been forced to relocated to Far West during the early part of 1838 by armed dissenters and anti-Mormons enforced a world view for Smith and other church leaders that the church was fighting for its life.<ref>Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy,pp. 92</ref>"

changed to

"Joseph Smith, Jr. and Sidney Rigdon of the First Presidency left Kirtland, leaving this headquarters. Smith and his followers relocated to Far West during the early part of 1838.

Comment: This change appears to be attempting to remove any suggestion that Smith might have failed to maintain control of matters. It also removes a referenced statement. Granted, the original needed a minor copyedit.

• Response - "lost control" is interpretive language; from what over what? What reputable reference states this. If it is an individual, then the sentence should say Historican ? states that... What we know is he left Kirtland for Missouri. Seems like the language I edited was to make it more NPOV than taking a specific POV as the current langauge does. The Chruch never lostt control of the Kirtland temple and title remained in church hands; this is just wrong. Quinn is an individual historian, not the answer man. Clarify where the opinion is coming from rather than stating it as fact. Quinn is a controversial historian.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The "lost control" language has been in place since June 11, 2005, surviving several hundred later edits, including 9 of yours, so it can't be so egregious. And Quinn appears to be only controversial within LDS circles. This is certainly not my field, and the editor who added this material, John_Hamer appears to be no longer active. I will seek input from other editors. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"financial disagreements had likewise created additional dissenters. The Missouri presidency stood accused of mismanaging church funds" changed to "financial mismanaging church funds occured. Monies..."

Comment: This change introduces vagueness: one is left asking "who stood accused?" The purpose appears to be that of absolving church leadership of any suggestion of wrongdoing.

• Response - Vagueness? Who do you think was accused of mismanging church funds? Was it Smith or local leaders? You brought back vaugness. Be specific was it local leaders or not. At whose direction did excommuncation courts commence? Who was excommunicated? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, the language that you changed is more than three years old, and is from the same editor. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since each of these changes appear to introduce POV, I have reverted them, while leaving the other changes (including fact tags) in the diff unchanged. Please note: if you look at my edit history, you will see that I have no POV with regard to LDS articles. I just happened to see this edit, and it did not appear to me to be in fact reducing POV. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My objective was to remove error and introduce neutral POV. This is not personal and I have no need to review your history; I take your edits at face value. Whole sale reverts are seldom the way to go in proving attention to edits, particularly when editors make an effort to break down their edits in small pieces to facilitate future editing of same. Regardless, I view your reverts to bring back a negative POV and errors in the previous text; not the preferable action. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My responses are interleaved, above. Incidentally, this all started with a single large wholesale edit of yours, vis., this one. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Mwanner has said. His/her writting style appears pretty solid to me. I had made many small edits removing POV and all of a sudden they were back. Regarding Quinn, check his resume. He was spotless until he really started speaking his mind and there were some personal issues too. The Wall Street Journal did a great article about him a couple of years ago. Have you read his stuff? Wow, talk about background sources! Finally regarding Quinn, much of what he said seemed to match quite well with what I learned in my History of the Mormon Church courses that I took while attending BYU. The profs (two courses, two different profs) were very honest and made commentary that what they said would not be well received by the Church leadership. Unless someone can disprove him in a substantial way, I think he makes a valuable resource. The violence was on both sides, although the Mormons were very patient intially, they did start to get more assertive as time went on, that is pretty much undeniable.Jspice9000 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I too agree with Mwanner. Nevertheless, this article begs for someone to tweak the literary style—as for instance, in exchanging passives for actives. I also agree that Quinn's a great source, although I'm often put off by his "academese."--John Foxe (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for balance. There is not a single source that should be used for controversial positions. When doing so, state who is saying what. Do you think that controversial opinions should be stated as fact or attributed? My position is that they should be attributed regardless of who the historian making the claim is.

The article states the violence was on both sides, but the Mormons were passive at first. Who is to blame for a fight? The one who hits a fellow three times or the one who finally responds to the violence and hits back? It is appropriate to identify the aggressor rather than write a sentence making it appear as if both sides were equally at fault. When I made my edits I clearly stated that some of the edits I made needed to be referenced. This is allowing POV creep to continue. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"The one who hits a fellow three times or the one who finally responds to the violence?" Is violence the sole cause of conflict? No. The Mormons did cause social unrest, although I doubt it was intentional. They were a very different and sizable social group with new religious views, customs, their own money (until their bank failed) and social hierarchy. That this may have caused some to react negatively is not surprising. They lacked a certain amount of diplomacy when dealing with neighbours. Both sides were wrong. You want to argue about shades of grey? Be realistic. Jspice9000 (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. The solution is more detail-- tell the whole story (or at least a lot more of it). It's often the case that trying to summarize complex situations introduces POV, whilst a fuller account allows a more objective statement of the facts. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jspice, you are addressing two different things. Mormons were victims of physical violence first. What the article mucks up is making the victims responsible for violence against them because of their behavior. The Mormons were not capable of responding always with pacifism to all persecution. However, that does not make them responsible for the violence against them. They eventually responded in violence to the violence against them. One can argue it was defensive or not, but the fact remains that some Mormons chose physical violence as a reaction. What the edit in question did is make the Mormons appear responsible from the get go for the violence against them. I think history has shown that local citizens often used violence because Mormons came to the neighborhood; they were numerous, became instant threats to local political power bases, were different than the local populaces, and had different religious beliefs. All contributed to frustrating local populations who chose to deal with the differences by violence. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the context - the Danites. There was violence on both sides. Perhaps you want to take a more gentle approach in other articles, but violence on both sides was real and the Danites were not boy scouts - they did initiate violence too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspice9000 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jspice, that is not an issue for me nor is it reflective of any of my edits. The question is why were they violent? Without answering that you are taking action out of context. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, perhaps you should re-read the article. Some of the violence was initiated by angry Mormons towards former Mormoms, some of whom were very high ranking - made the Church look bad. Hardly self-defense. Some left because Mormons took land in Gallatin. Also, don't I recall something about a newspaper office/printing press being destroyed by Mormons for printing disparaging remarks? Not self-defense. What makes the Danites notorious (and worth writing the article for) is their alledged role as a 'secret police' force within Mormon circles and former Mormons and the violence and threats of voilence that they used for spilling the beans (so to speak) regarding temple endowment ceremony rites. If you want, we can include those specific temple rites that were supposedly divulged and why/how it ties in to some of the threats made by Danites. Quinn doesn't go into detail about that because at the time he was doing most of his work, he was still a believer - he was trying to be delicate (which is so obvious if you read his work). I have no issues with discussing it however. I guess once again Mwanner is right, the solution is more detail. I'll see what I can dig up.Jspice9000 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with the entire article is that is strays too much from the important part of the Danites. They weren't exclusively for self-defense and they weren't the exlcusive self-defenders. The article should really stay focused on the role dealing with dissent, some of the causes and the results. That there was voilence and conflict with neighbours really isn't important. The other major sections should be deleted or moved to other pages. Any thoughts? Jspice9000 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Danite Manifesto

Somehow this segment has become very jumbled. There are clearly sentences and paragraphs that belong to other sections in here and some formating has been removed. Hence, you will notice large edits on my part trying to put it back at least somewhat close to a logical order. Whoever did this, please preview your work before you save.Jspice9000 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)