Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44/Archive 3

Recent edits
Recently, this article has been hit by a series of edit-and-reverts, which I have been partially involved in. Myself and Tripleahg (talk have endeavored (see previous section) to raise issues that we feel should be discussed here with regard to some of these edits, but not all of those involved in this "edit conflict" have chosen to participate. It is not enough to insist that a one-line edit summary is a sufficient substitute for an in-depth talk page discussion, especially when other, established Wikipedia editors have asked for one.  It is not enough to insist that myself and Tripleahg are unable to recognize some alleged "inconvenient truth," without discussing in depth what that "truth" is, and how we are failing to recognize it.  If there's some "inconvenient truth" being ignored here, I would invite you in a friendly and gentlemanly spirit to come over here and discuss it with us.  Let's all work together, and see if we can't agree on a way to make this article the best it can be. You state your side; each of us will state ours, and we'll see if we can't meet somewhere in the middle. How 'bout it? Cheeers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I was not involved until today's edit by me, I figure I would see if I can't sum up the issue at hand and give my opinion.
 * It seems to me this edit is where the issues came up. Ultimately it seems to me that the dispute is if there were any deaths caused by Missouri Executive Order 44.  So it comes down to the following questions:
 * If were any death directly related to the Missouri Executive Order 44 (Order 44).
 * If those that died due to the wintry conditions the expelled the Mormons faced can be considered deaths from Order 44.
 * If the deaths at Haun's Mill massacre three days later can be considered deaths from Order 44.
 * In my opinion, and I believe Ecjmartin and Tripleahg would agree, the answer to all three of this is NO for the following reasons:
 * While many people died, it was not directly related to the Missouri Executive Order 44. The academic consensus is that at no time did the militiamen use Order 44 to kill someone.  All the deaths were caused by the wintry conditions.
 * While some argument can be made that since the Mormons face the wintry conditions due to Order 44, they died from Order 44. I don't see any reliable sources making that claim.  I also feel it falls under Post hoc ergo propter hoc ( "after this, therefore because of this", a type of Logical fallacy).  Just because Order 44 came first, doesn't mean it was the cause of the deaths.  Would the militiamen have expelled the Mormons without Order 44?  Did they even know about Order 44?  If that answer to ether question is "Yes", then the Mormons did not die from Order 44, even though it came first.
 * There is no evidence that the militiamen who were at Haun's Mill knew of the Order 44. If this is to be included there needs to be reliable sources as the academic consensus is that they didn't.
 * Unless some serious reliable sources can be found directly linking the deaths to order 44, it should written as it is. The current format is more WP:NPOV, while still addresses the fact that people died.  The only real difference is the new version place direct blame on Order 44, while the original version states indirect causes.
 * However, I would love to hear from the other side of this debate.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree with this. This is what I've been trying to say, all along.  Nobody--certainly not me!--disputes that Boggs did an vile, reprehensible thing in issuing Order 44; the fundamental question is whether anyone can prove that people died as a direct result of it via academic sources that are acceptable for this encyclopedia.  Let's consider the following:
 * Not one participant in the Haun's Mill Massacre ever cited this missive; indeed, there's no evidence that they even knew of it at the time this evil event occurred. To insinuate in any way that they might have, without direct, academically-acceptable evidence to back that up, is misleading and totally out of place in an NPOV encyclopedia.  No other persons involved in the murder of any Mormon ever cited it, either, to my knowledge.  If someone can show us proof to the contrary, I for one would love to see it.
 * General Clark did mention the Governor's order more than once (including the word "exterminated") at Far West when he addressed the Saints after their surrender. However, he equally made it clear that HE WOULD NOT ENFORCE THAT ORDER AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME; RATHER HE TOLD THE SAINTS THAT THEY COULD REMAIN TEMPORARILY, simply warning them not to think of "putting in crops" or "staying another season."  This indicates that Clark--to whom Boggs had given full authority to execute Order 44--had no intention of forcing the Mormons out of Missouri in the dead of winter.  While one might infer that the Saints didn't (for excellent reasons) trust Clark, Boggs or any other Missouri authorities and thus felt they should leave right then, this was still THEIR decision.  We would need a firsthand source from the Mormons at this time SAYING that this was their reason, in order to attribute the winter deaths directly to Order 44.  Otherwise, it remains that the Mormons (again, for entirely understandable reasons) chose not to avail themselves of Clark's "clemency" (as he put it)--but this was still THEIR decision and MUST be presented as such.
 * Don't get me wrong: if I were a Mormon in Far West in 1838, I'd have packed my stuff and headed out within one hour of Clark's speech, "clemency" or not. But to say that Order 44 was directly responsible by itself for the Mormon deaths in the winter of 1838-39, without equally referencing Clark's offer to DELAY its enforcement until the following spring and the MORMON decision (again, for entirely understandable reasons--nobody here, I think, would debate that!) not to avail themselves of it, is POV and misleading.
 * In summary, I would say that Points 1 and 3 raised earlier by Artist I am in 100% agreement with; Point 2 I would say I am in "qualified" agreement with, for the reasons given above. In general, I wholeheartedly concur.  We need to keep this article on this still-volatile subject as factual and neutral as possible, and it seems to me that the edit restored by Artist does that best. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you guys think your Opinion matters. You have stated it is your opinion this and your opinion that... trying to talk your way out of the facts is arbitrary. My edits were sourced, my answers to you factual and concise. Hot air is still hot air, no matter which way you try to blow it. You are trying to rewrite history... and even went so far as to blame the Mormons for leaving. Your arrogance is beyond unacceptable. Believe you me, this will be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Our opinion matters, for the same reason yours does, and everyone else's does. Because we are human beings.  Because we have a right to one, and to express it in a civil manner.  I hate to say this, and I mean no offense, but I have yet to see you do this here--and until you do, I refuse to carry this discussion further.  Come back sometime, when you're ready to do so.  I'll be waiting.  Until then, God bless you and yours. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No sir, Your Opinion does not matter. Not in the presentation of facts.  It's a simple journalistic concept.  Not one of my design. Keepitreal2 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's check one of your "facts." I quote: "As stated before, there is no proof they had no knowledge and given the political positions the men had there is more probability they knew than did not."  Is this "fact?"  I don't think so.  You used that as an edit summary to justify insisting that they knew.  "Probability" is not fact; it's opinion.  So why should your opinion matter, and mine should not??  On your talk page you speak of your "credentials," which appear to consist entirely of a list of your great-grandfathers.  Does this make you an expert??  Joseph Smith III was Joseph Smith's own son; should I take HIS insistence that his father wasn't a polygamist over the overwhelming evidence that he was--just because he was Smith's eldest boy??  I have tried VERY hard to be understanding here, while you have been belligerent, flippant and downright hostile--not just to me, but to all of the other editors who have tried to engage with you on this subject.  I still have no desire to offend you, but you apparently do not care whether you offend me, or anyone else here.  That said, I STILL thank you for your source, and will still use it in my rewrite, this evening. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do I point out here that the fact was You Had No Proof they didn't know about it??? Or do you need a little time for it to dawn on you? Keepitreal2 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't need any proof that they didn't know; all I needed was to state, as I did, that there was no evidence that they knew of it--because since you hadn't yet shared with the rest of us the evidence that you had, we had none. I made no false statements, there; all I did was to factually affirm the academic consensus, and the fact (as it appeared then, in the absence of the evidence you provided only just today) that none of the militiamen ever cited the order as an excuse for what they did.  I and several other editors repeatedly asked you to provide evidence to show otherwise; only this morning did you do so.  I have nothing personal against you for the position you've taken; all I am saying is that in the absence of evidence of the kind you provided only just today, I had no choice but to write what I did.  As I said earlier, the "probability" you cited in your earlier edit summary is not proof.  Today, you finally provided us with some hard evidence to work with--for which I thank you, in all sincerity, once again.  If you had given us this when we first asked for it, a lot of this could have been avoided.  Again, no hard feelings on my end; I understand the emotional issues involved here, especially when this concerns family.  I just wish you could have told us all this a few days ago.  That's all. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the takeaway here is writing about something so important and personal, to which your knowledge is limited and presentig it as fact, might not be the best idea. As much as you might want to be an expert, you never will be.

By yall saying a mother's firsthand account of her experience with this order is questionable... welp... this is where I sign off... I'm not dealing with peeps in the right state of mind... while it "This drama" might be the most exciting thing to happen to you guys all week, what yall consider casual entertainment is actually mocking others deep rooted pain and long term generational affects of genocide.

I will let the admins take it from here. Peace. Keepitreal2 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be, or pass myself off as being, an "expert." I am not such, have never considered myself such, and nobody else has ever said I was such.  I am merely an honest seeker after truth, trying to muddle through a difficult and volatile subject as best I can--just like every other editor on this encyclopedia, in the ultimate sense.  You used a word that I think summarizes the entire dilemma here: "personal."  For you--and I can totally respect this--this whole Order 44 / Haun's Mill tragedy is very personal, since it concerns your ancestors.  Hence, out of respect to them and love for them, you accord their journals, etc. a level of credibility that others who aren't so "personally" involved do not, and cannot, because they have no independent proof that they are completely trustworthy.  You may consider them eminently trustworthy, and that is certainly your right--and again, considering the fact that these people are your ancestors, this is completely understandable and respectable.  What I, and the rest of the editors out here wish to get across to you is that we can't consider them that way until we find some reason, other than your insistence that they are, to do so.  You, I believe, would insist on the same thing, if our roles were reversed.
 * Your continued insistence that we simply take your word for this isn't enough--and nor should it be. But this is precisely what you are insisting on.  I didn't see it before, but I realize after reading your latest entry, here, that this is SO very "personal" for you, that you are genuinely unable to see the concerns that the rest of us have, or how your own deeply-felt (and again, very understandable and respectable) emotions have caused you to behave in an insensitive, even rude, manner toward other editors.  I haven't been perfect, either; I have let my emotions get the better of me here a time or two, and for that I apologize.  But I realize now that there's really no real solution, no "middle ground" that we can find, here.  I refuse to ask for any sanctions against you, only because I believe you are a sincere person who is "too close" to this matter (in terms of it involving your own ancestors) to understand where the rest of us are coming from, or to give our concerns any consideration or validity.  So I am going to wash my hands of this conflict, as of now--because I don't think this is a battle either "side" here can win.  I wish you no ill will; I sincerely wish only God's blessings on you and yours.  I am sorry for what happened to your ancestors--just as I'm sorry for what happened to the families of my Jewish friends in Hitler's Europe, or my Orthodox friends in Soviet Russia.  I know people who have experienced genocide--not through the pages of an ancestral journal, but sadly, in their very own lives.  I hope you're able to find peace, friend, and I also hope someday you can understand where the rest of us were coming from here--and realize that we were never your enemies.  Cheers, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keepitreal2, I'm having trouble finding your answers to ARTEST4ECHO. I see above you mentioned they were "factual and concise" and I wonder if I am overlooking them because they are concise? I'd really appreciate it if you could direct me to those answers, particularly the answer to his question #3, but I'd really like to hear your response to all three of the questions he raised.
 * I also moved up and indented your comment right above this one so that it's easier to see who is responding to what. I hope that's ok- if not, please put your extra line breaks back in and remove the colons. I don't want to overstep any boundaries with anything that approaches editing someone else's posts, so all I did was shift it up and right slightly for clarity in reading the thread. But if that's too much I apologize, you can just change it right back. Tripleahg (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
Keepitreal2 keeps saying that "My edits were sourced, my answers to you factual and concise." so I have gone and looked at the sources. There are three:
 * 1. "Part III: Individual Affidavits from the National Archives (M–Z)," in Mormon Redress Petitions: Documents of the 1833–1838 Missouri Conflict, ed Clark V. Johnson (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1992), 493–559.
 * 2. History of the Church, Vol. III, Jul. 1139, 182–186.
 * 3. Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, Dec. 1888, 673.

So lets address the first two:
 * 1. Part III: Individual Affidavits from the National Archives (M–Z) is used to cite, "William Reynolds put his musket against Sardius's skull and blew off the top of his head, killing him."
 * Frist Part III: Individual Affidavits from the National Archives (M–Z) is a Dead Link. Using wayback, I find that the last time this page was active was 2013.  If you go to the 2013 archive the only Williams to appear are William Niswanger" and "William Laughlin".  No where is there a "William Reynolds" nor do the words "Reynolds", "musket", or "Sardius" appear anywhere.  This source had Failed verification.
 * Fabulous change it to this one. Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness W. Paul Reeve, Oxford University Press, Feb 2, 2015 - History - 352 pages - Located page 54.
 * Dead link != not verifiable or true. Keepitreal2 (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was able to look up this source. It reads: After putting a gun to the head of young Sardius Smith and pulling the trigger, Missouri militiaman William Reynolds declared, "Nits will make lice, and if he had lived he would have become a Mormon."
 * "The Historical Record" by Andrew Jenson, p 673 (https://archive.org/stream/historicalrecord01jens#page/672/mode/2up), also names the murderer as William Reynolds, and unlike the above source, it confirms the bullet "literally shot off the upper part" of the boy's head. But it also says that the gun was "near" his head as opposed to "to" his head, and the below source (the recollections of the boy's mother) also states "near" and in fact seems to have been a source upon which "Historical Record" drew. So of the three, I think the most primary and accurate source for this particular information is probably the below source, followed by "Historical Record" for other details that she didn't mention which were taken from other (likely also primary or near-primary) sources. Tripleahg (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 2. History of the Church V III is used to cite the statement, "Although participants in the massacre boasted of their acts for years, none of the Missouri attackers were ever brought to trial".
 * No where between pages 182 and 186 dose it address the Post massacre behavior of participants in the massacre. Pages 182-186 discuss the "Gathering of the Mob at Richmond", "Gen. Clark's Movements", and "Joseph Young's Narrative of the Massacre at Haun's Mills".  NOTHING is mentioned about the POST massacre and Mormon War events until page 197 and that is the Trial of Joseph Smith et all.  No mention of any request for trial nor the behavior of the participants in the massacre occurs.  This source had Failed verification.

Now lets address the last one:
 * 3. The Historical Record is used to cite "Reynolds later explained, "Nits will make lice, and if he had lived he would have become a Mormon.". After much looking
 * Finally one that is actually right, partly. I had to go and look for this occurrence myself as the cited source isn't complete.  After much looking I found it here.  Reynolds did say that....AND?  What has that got to do with Order 44? The cite says nothing of Order 44.  It says that Reynolds made this statement during the Haun's Mill massacre, before he had even heard of Order 44.  Even the citations says nothing of Order 44.  Scope explains the problem.  The Haun's Mill massacre is out of this pages Scope, which is determined by Consensus.  Therefore it is irrelevant that it is true that he said it as it is out of this pages Scope, so it doesn't belong.

Simply put two the sources have Failed verification and All Three are Out of Scope. Therefore none of them can be part of this page per Verifiability, not truth and Scope.

Since one of the sources is a Dead Link, it would seems that Keepitreal2 just copied and pasting this from Haun's Mill massacre without bothering to read the cites, then modified the wording to introduce a WP:POV, which hasn't even been addressed by Keepitreal2. Ultimately the Haun's Mill massacre has nothing to do with Missouri Executive Order 44. The academic consensus is that the participates in the massacre had no knowledge of Order 44, making all of this irrelevant to a page on Order 44.

Lastly, Consensus makes it clear, Consensus is "the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". Given that Four editor have rejected the new wording, that 2 of the 3 sources have Fail verification, that all 3 are out of scope, and that Keepitreal2 is simply refusing to accept the Consensus, the page should stay the way it is.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 14:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ARTEST4ECHO, I appreciate your thorough work checking those sources. Tripleahg (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Giving Up
Ecjmartin has quit wikipedia over this. I'm out too. There are many published academic sources saying that EO44 was not related to the Haun's Mill massacre. Your source is the stories you were told as a child. If your family tradition states that satan himself took over the body of Governor Boggs and transformed him into a dragon who personally delivered EO44 across the state in less than a day before he ate several people and used their bones to guard diamonds, that's wonderful. Put it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleahg (talk
 * is the source that Haun's Mill massacre used to show that published academic sources saying that EO44 was not related to the Haun's Mill massacre. It isn't hard to find others.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 16:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

New Stuff...
I'm putting this into a new section, since there's so much stuff in the previous sections and subsections...

This morning I had only time for a cursory examination of the source offered by Keepitreal with regard to Order 44 and Haun's Mill. Upon examining this source more closely this afternoon, it appears that the incident referred to in it (as stated by the eyewitnesses themselves) occurred on October 26, a full day before Order 44 was issued. Hence, I can see the difficulties academic historians have, in using this as "proof" that the militiamen at that slaughter knew of Boggs' decree. However, since it refers to an alleged order of the governor extremely similar to the wording of Order 44 (the only real difference being the "ten days" part), I decided to include the quote here with appropriate notations as to the date to preserve NPOV.

I also reworked the opener somewhat (as you can see), to incorporate this new information. I also took care of the issue you raised, Tripleahg, by tying the "new orders" directly to Order 44 just prior to the quote.

Since this article is not about Haun's Mill (which has an article entirely devoted to it), I kept the Haun's Mill information here to a minimum--basically, just info that's directly pertinent to this subject, here--while providing a direct link to the main article for interested parties to access.

Take a look, and tell me what you think. I think this is the best we can do, given that the date given by the eyewitnesses themselves is one day prior to Order 44 being issued. I do thank Keepitreal2 once again, for bringing this source to our attention. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I figured it out. Took me a lot of time and reading today! I now have to try to sleep tonight with fresh memories of page after page of stomach-turning affadavits. But I found what I was looking for here, under Henderson, James: http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/mormon-redress-petitions-documents-1833-1838-missouri-conflict/part-iii-second-appeal-1 (spelling/punctuation updated and emphasis added as well as dates):
 * "What was more surprising then all the rest was the Governor's order of extermination, which reached Far West in some days after [it was given, which was October 27th]. This order reached Far West about the 4th or 5th day of November, but before this, there was [Major] General [Samuel D.] Lucas of Jackson County- arrived about the 29th or 30th day of October- which also had an order to eliminate us if we would not comply with their proposals. That was, if we would give up our arms, and sign away all our property to pay the expense of the war, and leave the State forthwith, that we could live. Otherwise we must die. Which order was a forged one, without contradiction. ... Among them was Captain S[amuel] Bogart, Mathew McGaw, John Craig, Kneel Gillum, Charles Morehead, Lieutenant Cook. (About this time there was a massacre. Took place at Haun's Mill, where the mob fell upon a settlement of our people and killed 18.) ... General Lucas then took 7 prisoners (and started for Jackson county), names of which is Joseph Smith Jr, Hyrum Smith, ... and started for Jackson County [on November 2nd]. The next day or two [November 4], general [John Bullock] Clark arrived with 1200–1500 men with the proper order of Extermination from the Governor. Though, between the time of Lucas' departure and the arrival of Clark, we was ... forced to sign this deed of trust. Among those of our antagonists were Wiley Williams, Thomas Berch, George M. Hinkle."
 * Henderson says it's uncontested that Lucas made up his "orders" but Clark had real ones. He associates the fake orders with the massacre in addition to the anti-mormon behaviors Lucas' men were enacting in Far West. I'll come back to the link to Haun's Mill in a minute, but first:
 * I see some substantial differences between the fake order and the real one. Even if we didn't have the above affidavit I think the first one seems less than legit.
 * I don't see the word "extermination" but rather "eliminate", while all or nearly all references to the real order use some form of "exterminate".
 * Lucas' "order" mentions "indiscriminately shoot[ing] down women and children", but even his own men found it controversial to murder children (as described later in the long block quote). These are the same men who thought nothing of wounding children, torturing adults to death, using human bodies as a latrine for days while the grieving families hide in nearby woods and watch, etc etc. Clark's militiamen were engaged in mob violence, but not to that level of depravity. They would not have stood for what Lucas was describing. In fact Lucas wanted Joseph Smith and the six other adult male prisoners executed the day after they were captured, but militiamen from a slightly less savage group refused to allow it, instead ensuring that Smith et al. were brought to a jail to await a trial with a judge who was not also jury and executioner. This is a huge difference between the two "orders." I have trouble believing this difference is just that Lucas was misquoted repeatedly and Clark was quoted accurately. It seems much more likely that Lucas, knowing that expulsion from various counties had already been happening, found it convenient to lie about this expulsion rule now applying to the entire state. I'll also come back to this later, with why he would want to be lying in this situation, but for now I'm just saying that the phrasing and implications are wildly different between the two. This would also explain why the murderers at Haun's Mill never cited EO44 as justification- they knew they had gone far beyond the scope of EO44, even in the eyes of fellow Missourians. If it was all the same order, we would expect that order to be mentioned as justification after the fact, but it wasn't.
 * While both "orders" say the Mormons can either leave the state or die, the first one adds that they must fully disarm and also sign away all their property to pay the troops acting against them. The latter requirement is counterproductive as they can't move if they have no property to sell to get provisions, and no livestock to pull wagons. Boggs would have understood that, and Clark demonstrates his understanding of it when he keeps most of the men with their families and withdraws the troops so they have some space to get ready to leave, plus gives them several months to get ready. Clark is actually trying to succeed in driving out the Mormons, knowing he has to be a bit more hands-off in order to get them out the door. Lucas is trying to fail at driving them out, so he can shoot everybody. His "order" conveniently aligns with that goal, and EO44 does not, which I think strongly suggests that this isn't a simple issue of people misquoting him.
 * This goes even further with Lucas demanding they be gone within 10 days, which is completely impossible even if he did allow them to keep their horses and the other things necessary to move. Boggs wants them out of the state. Clark wants them out of the state. Paradoxically, a 10 day requirement actually makes it harder for them to get out. Why try when failure is a guarantee? EO44 is worded as though Boggs wants them out. Lucas' wording is as though he wants to make ridiculous demands and then kill all the Mormons very slowly. Again, I think it's unlikely that these are both the same order and Lucas was just misquoted in a way that happens to be really convenient for him (see below). It's much more likely that the two orders are simply different from each other.
 * On a related note, why would Lucas have them sign the treaty if it's a law he is enforcing? They don't have to sign anything when Clark arrives holding an order that's actually legal to enforce.
 * I think Clark's speech implies the treaty and EO44 are different things: He says the saints signed a treaty with Lucas. He intends to hold them to it. If he had been in Lucas' place he would have made the same demands Lucas did. He makes a tangential comment about character, then makes his main point: Boggs ordered him to exterminate or drive out the Mormons. Had they refused to unconditionally surrender to Lucas they would have had their houses burned and then been killed, but in contrast, Boggs' orders to Clark allow him to be flexible. He is not actually going to enforce all the property seizures in the treaty, instead allowing them to live in their homes until Spring, and on top of that he is withdrawing the troops so the saints can raise funds/provisions for the exodus instead of cowering under muskets the whole time. In the speech he always calls the prior agreement a "treaty" but he calls what he has an "order". He doesn't come out and say that Lucas was lying about having orders from Boggs, but he certainly isn't conflating the treaty and EO44.
 * Looking at the above block quote from the murdered boy's mother, I think it's more consistent with Lucas lying than it is with Lucas telling the truth. He makes the refugees gather at Haun's Mill, disarming them on the way. Then according to other sources I read today, Lucas and his men come close to the settlement and look menacing just to freak people out. It works. Then they send a man into town and pretend at concern- we didn't want to scare you! Let's make a peace treaty just to soothe your anxieties! And then... the next day? Day after? I can't remember. Lucas invades and ignores the guy he'd signed the treaty with, even as the guy yells "Peace! Peace!" Some Mormon men start running into the blacksmith's while still calling out for a truce. Lucas says that any man who doesn't want to get shot should also go into the blacksmith's, implying he will accept their surrender once they all gather there. Then he waits several seconds with neither him nor his mob-men shooting at the men running toward the blacksmith's. He gives his men the signal and they all simultaneously shoot at the blacksmith's, just once, for effect. They then approach and surround it and we all know the story from there. While some of those details may have been exaggerated by the mormons writing the affidavits, I think it's pretty obvious that Lucas was planning a massacre from at least the time he re-routed the settlers to Haun's Mill if not before. Making up a lie about an order from Boggs fits the timeline better than EO44, which hadn't been written yet. And a lie fits with his vile planning process much better than the comparatively almost-civilized EO44. The similarities between his lie and the real order are easily explained when we recall that expulsion orders were already present for individual counties and they were on everyone's mind, making it only a small leap for Boggs to think up a statewide order, and a small leap for Lucas to also think up a fake statewide order, within several days of each other.
 * What cinched it for me was that Baugh in "A Call to Arms" (a very long, academic book on the Mormon War that was originally his PhD dissertation and then got picked up by a real publisher) has an entire chapter on the massacre. It has an eight page subchapter called "The Attack Not Connected to the Exterminating Order". I was unable to find any copies of this subchapter online for free, but Hartley in "Missouri’s 1838 Extermination Order" states "Baugh argues persuasively that the attackers had not heard about the extermination order; see Baugh, 'A Call to Arms,' 296–98". I looked into Baugh's credentials and there is no way he is simply unfamiliar with the sources we are reviewing today. So to me that strongly, strongly suggests that there is a solid case to be made that Lucas was lying, and EO44 and Haun's Mill are truly not directly connected. If anyone has access to Baugh's book or can determine what argument he spends eight pages making, particularly the three pages Hartley found persuasive, I think it would be extremely valuable for this discussion. Tripleahg (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm done here, folks. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It took some time for me to read over this. Thank you Tripleahg for looking over all this stufd.  I agree what that EO44 and Haun's Mill are truly not directly connected.  The statement is already cited with another source.  Hopefully that will help calm things down.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 14:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hunted Like Rabbits
On October 14th, 1838, in Missouri, Joseph Smith declared his identification with Muhammad. “If the people will let us alone,” cried the prophet, “we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion by the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [al-Koran] or the sword.” So shall it eventually be with us–’Joseph Smith or the Sword’”. (Brodie, No Man Knows My History, ch. xvi, p. 231.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.231.32 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the above quote? To impugn the victims of EO44 and the Hauns Mill Massacre? To equate them with present day Muslim Extremists, whom the *unsigned* contributor disdains? What people, victimized as the Mormons were at this point (5 years running in 1838), wouldn't say "enough already or we are going to do something!" even if ultimately powerless to do anything? Show where in the context of this wiki-article Joseph Smith made good on this rhetoric. His people have been shown historically to have striven to live peaceably with their Missouri neighbors, for all the good it did them. Words such as these do not constitute actions that justify anything in EO44. Playerpage (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is actually biased in favor of the Mormons. By listing all the actions against the Mormons while leaving most of the Mormon provocations unlisted it lacks a great deal of the historical context. The Mormons were guilty of a great deal of provocation, including the stealing of wives, setting up corrupted civil governments that served only the church, murders, and kidnappings contrary to the law.198.230.98.33 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Missouri is much like the abortion issue and approval of our courts. In my honest opinion and belief, it's nothing less than first degree murder of an unborn child which is the offspring and creation of all mighty God. We are are miraculous children of almighty God who created us in His own image, knows us each individually and has an eternal plan for each of our lives. The devil aka Satan is also alive and at work to destroy us all! Robbie Canfield (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missouri Executive Order 44. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526042751/http://www.jwha.info/mmff/exorder.htm to http://www.jwha.info/mmff/exorder.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Vocal Opposition to Slavery
I don't think it was true that Joseph Smith was Vocally opposed to slavery. In fact, he tried to temper abolitionist Mormons. See his letter to Oliver Cowdery. I would like to delete the sentence discussing Joseph Smith's vocal opposition to slavery, unless someone can point to any shred of evidence otherwise. Epachamo (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mormon Extermination Order which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Add information regarding cultural understanding of the Order
In the fourth paragraph it says: "The order, while using the term extermination, is widely understood today not to have intended the physical annihilation of the Mormon population." It goes on to say this is the consensus of scholars; however, this is not the consensus in the church. I was raised as a member, and we were taught that the Order was a call for genocide. This is a lesson in the Primary manual, which is essentially Sunday School for kids age 3 to 11, more or less: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-5/lesson-31?lang=eng

I am unsure if this is worth adding to the article or how best to add it, so I would like feedback before including it in the article. Ap1015 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * According to the official LDS Church site's article on the order:
 * https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/extermination-order?lang=eng
 * "'At the time, the meaning of the term extermination included the possibility of forced evacuation. For example, in the case of the forcible removal of American Indians, United States officials used the phrase exterminating war to describe the use of force to achieve either the Indians’ “total expulsion” or “total extinction.” Military leaders expected expulsion orders to be met with hostile resistance, meaning “extinction” was a possibility, though evacuation was the more likely outcome.'"
 * The governor's wording was ambiguous, and there's even indication that the militia generals were confused by it even back then. The above explanation is very clear, and I agree that the current paragraph needs further adjustments to accurately represent the historical context Gottagitgud (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)