Talk:1838 Mormon War

message: "The church was persecuted for religion, which is against the constitution, the people in missouri were wrong.[5]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGumby (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the cult was not "persecuted for religion." Note that the Saints had been robbing people, selling fake stocks, passing counterfeit bank notes and USA Treasury notes, taking land from the owners, and preventing free trade to the point where food produced by non-Saints sat in warehouses rotting. The Saints also set up their own government, with their own laws, and refused to pay taxes on USA government services they used such as roads and bridges. The victims wanted the Saints out of their lives and out of their region. In year 2009 the LDS published for public review over two million private letters written by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Saints, explaining why they were "persecuted:" it was because of their crimes. Desertphile (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: removing opinion

message: I changed the text about Governor Boggs back, but I softened the writing by saying "a degree of" and "somewhat" and this sort of thing.  This change "Boggs had shown fairness" --- where does that come from?  I think historians --- not just Mormons --- agree that Boggs didn't show fairness.  If anyone has a source that says otherwise, I would like to see a reference. --John Hamer 04:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: changed the text

message: Jgardner --- I'm likewise sorry that I dismissed you quickly and reacted hastily.  When I read the change about "mobbers" burning their own houses, I thought you were just a Wikipedia vandal.  I would have reacted the same to someone claiming that the Mormons burned their own houses in Jackson County in order to blame the Missourians.  You'll note that I reacted similarly when some Anti-Mormon vandal tried to change this article to say that Boggs had always treated the Mormons fairly.  That's simply not true — Boggs clearly acted with negative bias toward the Mormons.  
I agree with you that the primary sources are the most important sources.  There are a great bulk of primary sources for this period, and yes I have read many, many of them.  However, many of the primary sources are partisan.  You have to consider them all and weigh them against each other.  For many of the events, much of scholarship has reached a reasonable consensus on many issues in the past 20 years.  The accounts in both Baugh and LeSueur match on almost all the issues — I've been referencing Alex Baugh for you to show you what believing, practicing LDS scholars have now said.  
My goal is to tell this story in a neutral way.  I am not an Anti-Mormon in any way.  My ancestors lived in Far West; their property was wrongly appropriated and they were illegally expelled from the state.  I am having an article I wrote on this period published in a compilation by the LDS church's Deseret Book (which I mention to illustrate that my research has not been viewed by the LDS church as "anti")
Let's work together here, if we can.  Quote specific sources and references and I'll do my best to answer. --John Hamer 14:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try to work together

message: Could I suggest a disambig at the top to the page to Johnston's Army?  Growing up Mormon (there's a title!), the only "Mormon War" I heard about was the US action against the western LDS Settlements.  The Missouri troubles/persecutions were not labeled a "war" until college history class.  So, our readers might need direction.  WBardwin 15:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I wrote a little something, see if that works for you. --John Hamer 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnston's Army 

message: I've been expanding this article --- it was actually one of the first I wrote, and it really needed some flesh on its bones (especially references) --- but I don't want it to be too long, so I've started to expand some of the supplemental articles.  I just made a massive expansion to the Battle of Crooked River article and I hope to hit some of the others soon. --John Hamer 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplemental Articles

message: I understand that there are a great deal of Mormon articles in Wikipedia, its becoming something of the great saga.  At the end of the articles such as this one could you enter a reference under 'see also' a link to the next part of the story.  Such as that the Mormons are moved on to Illinois, but what happened there to end up seeing them go to Utah.  I understand that these articles have been written, but I am wondering if you could link them up for us so that, if us readers come upon the story at any point we might be ushered on to the next installment or previous happening.  Such seems the convenience of the almost linear development of the Mormon story, that it would be served well by this type of delivery.Danieljames626 05:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened next? 

message: Kville105125 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged content from Gallatin election day battle 

message: Although tensions were indeed high there was NEVER any authorized killing by organized Morman Forces (Although they came close)66.41.186.212 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is BULLSHIT 

message: This is the second renaming of this article.  Renaming this article based on date is not helpful.  There are three wars that are clearly identified by state -- Missouri Mormon War, Illinois Mormon War and Utah War.  The Utah article at least keeps the state name in it.  You have to be a hardcore historian to recognize the dates whereas the states keep it in perspective.  Americasroof (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to also add that Missouri would be more appropriate since the war was actually in two parts - 1833 (the eviction from Jackson County) and 1838.  Americasroof (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will add the Illinois war doesn't even have its own article -- it's a subset of History of Nauvoo, Illinois.  Any search of "Mormon War" will produce the most results on the Missouri event.Americasroof (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Constant renaming of this article

message: Holy cow!  I can't believe I just added the only inline reference on this article!  For an article about something that is very controversial, that is pretty pathetic! Americasroof (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not pathetic -- just old.  Almost all of this article was created before the current "fad" of inline cites.  It takes a while for older articles to be rewritten and rereferenced.  71.219.150.164 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in that the article is not materially different from its first significant contribution in January 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_War_%281838%29&oldid=9236065  It caught me more of a surprise considering the considerable debates and references on its parts.  There is considerable controversy in some of the facts and inline references would help that.  But you are right it takes time to do it properly.Americasroof (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses Harvard style references. They just have to be converted into links using the appropriate template. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Consistent style, the citation style already established in the article must be followed. Therefore I have replaced the ... style reference with one that is more similar to the style already used in the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No inline references

message: The "cross" symbol next to David Patten's name is standard notation for US armed conflicts indicating death during combat &/or during the conflict; this is not a religious symbol in this usage, or some sort of a memorial. For another example please see War of 1812. This should not be removed again. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/publications/studies_spring_01/MHS2.1Black.pdf}}
** In 1838 Mormon War on 2011-05-25 02:04:40, 404 Not Found
** In 1838 Mormon War on 2011-06-01 22:48:18, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: This article was moved without discussion.  The other articles refer to the state (Utah Mormon War and Illinois Mormon War).  People do not easily recognize the year.  But they will recognize the state.  Even the disambiguation refers to it as "AKA Missouri Mormon War."Americasroof (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have citations that demonstrate that this is the most common usage, then I'd support this proposal. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename this article to Missouri Mormon War

message: All of the information here that discusses the forceful removal of Mormons appears to draw from sources affiliated with the LDS church. If the goal here is to inform a neutral audience, then there ought to be more effort involved. And is it really the case that there are no peer-reviewed sources on this topic outside of BYU?
Rob Shepard (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, this particular article, three years later, is still completely biased towards Mormons. It needs to be re-written to include as many counterpoint sources as possible. 24.49.173.118 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues

message: NOT trying to start any kind of edit war here, but the change in the church name does have a bearing on this article.  The name of the church is mentioned at the beginning of one section as the Church of Christ, which is correct--but by the time the war commenced, the name had officially changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  While I would agree that it has no major bearing on the outbreak of the war, it does represent the official name of this organization at the time the conflict erupted; hence I think this article should pay at least passing credit to that fact.  There is no need for any extended discussion, but the article should at least give the name that was being used officially in 1838, somewhere in the article prior to the portion that details the beginning of the conflict.  Just my opinion, though--as I said, I'm not trying to start any edit wars.  Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the church has no direct bearing on the issues involved with the 1838 Mormon War; it was not an antecedent factor to the conflict, it was not an action taken during the conflict, nor was it a result of the conclusion of the conflict. The links at the beginning of the article to Latter Day Saints (which redirects to Latter Day Saint movement), Mormons, and especially to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) all adequately describe the change in name in a far better way than the the awkward wording, and poor placement of the material you added. The edit in question does not add materially to a readers understanding of the 1838 Mormon War, and is off topic. If you feel a need to included the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" name in the article in order to avoid anachronistic naming usage, there are far better, less intrusive ways to do this than the way you have. —Asterisk*Splat→ 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have it your way. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean to cause offense; I myself make plenty of mistakes, and don't always word things in the most clear manner (see the repeat word issue in my reply above). It would have been better if I had not characterised the wording as being awkward, as that wasn't needed, and I should have foreseen that using that word could cause conflict. That was foolish of me, and I'm sorry. —Asterisk*Splat→ 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries; these things happen to all of us--me, included!  I fully accept your apology, and also apologize to you in turn if anything I did or said was offensive to you.  Have a super day. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Church name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1838 Mormon War. 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/20131224120338/http://www.jwha.info/mmff/mmtour.htm to http://www.jwha.info/mmff/mmtour.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) 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This claim is highly is questionable. The county itself was newly created, and its first election was scheduled precisely in 1838. Without historical voting records, how  would it even be even possible to verify this assertion about a pre-existing political balance?
It's clear that the influx of Mormon settlers into the region did significantly impact local politics. It was the hot, new controversial issue that political candidates had to address. But this specific claim is just unsubstantiated. I have marked it as unverified and would appreciate if more work could be done on adressing the Mormons' disruptive impact on regional political dynamics. Gottagitgud (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Daviess County had been balanced between Whigs and Democrats": unverified