What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mormon War: Zion and the Missouri Extermination Order of 1838
How the Violent Expulsion of the Mormons from Missouri Changed the History of America and the WestIn 1831, Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Church of Christ—later to be renamed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—revealed that Zion, or “New Jerusalem,” was to be established in Jackson County, Missouri. Smith sent some of his followers to begin the settlement, but they were soon expelled by locals who were suspicious of their religion and their abolitionist sympathies. Smith led an expedition to regain the settlement, but was unsuccessful. Seven years later, in January 1838, Smith fled to Missouri from Ohio to avoid a warrant for his arrest, and joined the Mormon community in the town of Far West, which became the new Zion. The same prejudices recurred and the Mormons found themselves subject to attacks from non-Mormons, including attempts to prevent them from voting. Despite his abhorrence of violence, Smith decided that it was necessary for Mormons to defend themselves, which resulted in a short and sharp conflict known as the Mormon War. A covert Mormon paramilitary unit, the Danites, was formed to pillage non- Mormon towns, while angry rhetoric rose from both sides. After the Missouri state militia was attacked at the Battle of Crooked River, Missouri governor Liburn William Boggs issued Executive Order 44, which called for Mormons to be “exterminated or driven from the State.” Non-Mormons responded by attacking a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill, killing men and boys and firing on the women. Following this massacre, the state militia surrounded Far West and arrested Smith and other Mormon leaders. Smith was tried for treason and narrowly avoided execution, but was allowed to go and join the rest of his followers who were forced from Missouri to Illinois, where they founded their next major town, Nauvoo. There, Smith would be murdered and the church would split into several factions, with Brigham Young leading the movement’s largest group to Utah.
In The Mormon Zion and the Missouri Extermination Order of 1838, Brandon G. Kinney unravels the complex series of events that led to a religious and ideological war of both blood and words. The Mormon War not only challenged the protection afforded by the First Amendment, it foreshadowed the partisan violence over slavery and states’ rights that would erupt across Missouri and Kansas. The war also fractured Smith’s Church and led ultimately to the unexpected settlement of a vast area of the West as a Mormon homeland. By tracing the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and his quest for Zion, the author reveals that the religion he founded was destined for conflict—both internal and external—as long as he remained its leader.
In The Mormon Zion and the Missouri Extermination Order of 1838, Brandon G. Kinney unravels the complex series of events that led to a religious and ideological war of both blood and words. The Mormon War not only challenged the protection afforded by the First Amendment, it foreshadowed the partisan violence over slavery and states’ rights that would erupt across Missouri and Kansas. The war also fractured Smith’s Church and led ultimately to the unexpected settlement of a vast area of the West as a Mormon homeland. By tracing the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and his quest for Zion, the author reveals that the religion he founded was destined for conflict—both internal and external—as long as he remained its leader.
288 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 18, 2011
6 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 24, 2013
This is a hard book to rate. I could have given it three stars, but for a couple of things that made it difficult to read. First of all, the author displays a definite anti-Mormon bias, which wouldn't be a problem if he hadn't introduced the book by saying he wanted to give an unbiased story. (That bias made it hard for me to completely trust his account, although his material is well-documented.) Second, I cannot imagine how any could graduate from college, let alone law school, without being an at least moderately competent writer...which Kinney is not! In geography, chronology, and just plain old grammar, he leaves the reader confused and frustrated. I found myself muttering, "Antecedents! Where are your antecedents?" on a regular basis (once an English teacher...). It was very hard to keep some of the characters straight, as they tended to pop up in the action at the same time that they were apparently in jail (or dead). That said, I did learn a lot from the book. It gives a good explanation of the beginning of the Mormon religion and of the problems they had, and paints a very selfish picture of Joseph Smith. It's hard to believe that anyone would follow him, given the events described by Kinney.
December 5, 2011
Was much less biased then I expected. As a lapsed Mormon, it was nice to get fairly unbiased information, and the historians he referred are mostly well respected by the liberal and intellectual Mormon communities. It got a bit dry in the middle with long quotes from government documents, though.
October 23, 2012
Having recently read The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri (LeSueur) and the newly-published Fire & Sword (Gentry/Compton), I was curious what new research or perspectives this book might add. I did not get far into the book before concluding that, unfortunately, Kinney had virtually nothing new to offer. This is perhaps best demonstrated by noting that, leaving the background chapter on Missouri aside, Kinney cites No Man Knows My History (Brodie) no less than 170 times (approximately one in every 4 footnotes). In many places, the book simply felt like reading “Fawn Brodie Digest.” The abundant use of Brodie is symptomatic of the greatest weakness of Kinney’s work—heavy reliance on secondary sources. Even a casual comparison of The Mormon War with either The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri or Fire and Sword reveals that Kinney is content to piece the story together primarily using previously trodden ground, resulting in a treatment of the period that fails to add to the body of scholarship on Mormonism in Missouri.
The first chapter, dealing with Joseph Smith’s formative years, takes an entirely naturalistic approach very heavily influenced by Quinn’s Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (oddly, Kinney used only the first edition). Even when he does attempt to use contemporary sources, such as Lucy Mack Smith’s Biographical Sketches, Kinney distorts their meaning. For example, when discussing the moundbuilder culture in New England, he claims that Joseph was interested in it from a young age and determined to write a history thereof. His only source for such a claim is Biographical Sketches–not only does this source not mention anything resembling the surrounding moundbuilder artifacts, his mother clearly places Joseph’s discussion of “the ancient inhabitants of this continent” after 1823 and the proposed visitation from an angel. Positing moundbuilders as the motivation for the Book of Mormon is one thing; extracting evidence of this based solely on Lucy’s history of Joseph is simply absurd.
The chapter on Kirtland reveals another quirk of Kinney’s writing–in discussing early efforts with the Law of Consecration, he describes these endeavors as being “dubbed the ‘Kirtland Order.’” As I progressed through the book, I came to recognize that, as in this case, “dub” was some sort of signal that the upcoming term (seemingly of wide acceptance and usage) was Kinney’s creation. I am unaware of any source other than Brodie to use just such a term. The occasion of the first conference of the Church in June 1831 is another example of egregious misuse of sources. After following Brodie in describing a decidedly negative portrait of Joseph Smith, bereft of any discretion, going on a wild healing spree only to fail and cast a pall over the entire conference. Citing John Whitmer and Newel Knight for this episode (neither mention such an event) is puzzling until one realizes that Kinney has simply copied Brodie’s sources (which are describing something entirely different) without bothering to check them. (Not surprisingly, Brodie herself failed to provide a source for the disastrous healing spree.)
Kinney’s description of Kirtland following Zion’s Camp is similarly problematic. After depicting Smith’s return to an angry crowd, he turns to the papyri and translation. Kinney states that, due to this project, “Joseph Smith’s prestige was restored almost overnight.” Though certainly snippets of and references to the resultant text would emerge, Kinney portrays the church as immediately accepting this “new gospel” though, as he himself notes earlier on the same page, the text was of course not published until the Nauvoo period. Kinney next describes the poverty of the church at that point (true enough) and the welcome contributions of John Tanner for which he is claimed to have been rewarded with a “[position] of power within the church hierarchy.” Not only does the citation to RDLS [sic] Church History not deal with John Tanner, there is no evidence that he held a church position of any significance, certainly not within the hierarchy. Next, Kinney describes the creation of new hierarchal structures–though he correctly identifies the creation of the quorum of apostles and the seventies, he includes the Ohio and Missouri high councils which had been created a year earlier. Kinney then states that, concurrent with this expansion in leadership, Smith began referring to himself as president rather than prophet for some unknown reason. A quick glance at pre-1835 records shows that Smith was routinely referred to as “President Smith.” One final example of Kinney’s reliance on secondary sources during the Kirtland period comes with the Salem money trip. First, Kinney claims that Smith concealed the reason for the journey from his companions–this is based solely on Brodie, no source relating to the journey makes such a claim. Second, he creates a scenario where, after returning home with disgruntled fellow travelers to a similarly sour reception, he “makes” a revelation to smooth things over (Kinney here is following Linn’s errant reasoning in The Story of the Mormons)—the revelation in question was of course received while still in Salem and makes no effort to gloss over the reason why they were there.
As the action moves to Missouri, other glaring features of Kinney’s writing appear. As he is prone to do, Kinney makes a sweeping declaration that after another effort toward consecration, “most Mormons followed the example of Ananias and Sapphira.” Not surprisingly, no source is given for such a claim. Now that Kinney is actually discussing Missouri, comparisons with other treatments reveal his less than strenuous scholarship. When discussing the melee at Gallatin, Kinney (leaning on John D. Lee’s Mormonism Unveiled–another heavily used source) states simply that all the Mormons voted. As Gentry and Compton point out, even Lee himself (in addition to others) in a contemporary account disagrees with such a statement.
The narration of the actual conflicts between Mormons and Missourians is probably the strongest portion of the book. Here, Kinney draws heavily on the Mormon War papers in the Missouri state archive–likely the most positive element of his research. Had Todd Compton not previously made such use of this crucial source, this alone would recommend the book to a potential researcher. Despite this key source, Kinney still creates confusion where none is needed. In describing what is likely the most familiar scene of the later Missouri period–Lucas ordering the prisoners shot and Doniphan coming to their rescue–Kinney creates a mythical second court-martial to “address Doniphan’s insubordination.” In what should have served as a signal to rethink this paragraph, Kinney then writes “during the second court-martial, if it did occur.” (emphasis mine)
The final chapter on Nauvoo and (despite the chapter title) thereafter seems tacked on, almost as an afterthought. However, since the cover shows the Nauvoo temple in flames (an odd choice for a book on Missouri), excluding it would be problematic. The description of the scene at the Carthage Jail is characteristically full of claims without sources and associated problems. First, Kinney describes a letter written by Smith to Jonathan Dunham urging him, as commander of the Nauvoo Legion, to come and rescue the prisoners (Kinney here seems unaware that Willard Richards is also present). The source given here is an issue of the Tanners’ Salt Lake City Messenger–however, Kinney’s choice of words is so similar to Quinn that it seems likely he is leaning at least in part on Mormon Hierarchy: Origins. The point is somewhat moot since the letter described by the otherwise observant Quinn is a Mark Hofmann “original”–generally when scholars refer to an “embarrassment of sources” they are not referring to Jerald and Sandra Tanner buttressed by Mark Hofmann. At the jail, Kinney states positively that Joseph Smith killed two people with the smuggled six-shooter–as with the Dunham episode, even Brodie didn’t claim as much. Finally, describing John Taylor as “unharmed” following the fracas would probably not sit well with Taylor, his mangled left hip or his leg that carried a bullet the rest of his life. One last misrepresentation happens in the wrap-up paragraphs where Kinney paints all those who were present for the Battle of Nauvoo as antipolygamists who disagreed with Brigham Young. While some in the group certainly would have fit the description, the majority of them (as happened at every waystation during the move west) were simply too poor to go anywhere. Future member of the LDS First Presidency (and participant in the battle) Daniel H. Wells would likely not agree with Kinney’s description here either.
The additional material (notes, bibliography and even photo–I was confused as to how a photo of Edward Partridge, who died in 1840, could have been included until I found the same picture on Partridge’s Wikipedia page, a telling indicator of Kinney’s research) is similarly plagued with problems. Kinney frequently uses ibid following a note including several sources, leaving the reader unsure of what he is attempting to document. Even when a contemporary or near contemporary statement or piece of evidence can be marshaled, Kinney is more likely to direct the reader to a secondary source that includes the material in question. The author fails in the notes to provide alternative views on any given topic, one of the most valuable features of Compton’s work in Fire and Sword.
In short, after my initial excitement upon receiving a copy of this book, I was sorely disappointed. Despite Kinney’s stated goal in the preface of applying his lawyerly “expertise to [his] interpretation,” the final product was a mire of poorly chosen and poorly used sources. His heavy reliance on secondary sources and even wholesale copy and paste use of their sources in turn (I found that when I was confused as to why a certain work was cited, the quickest route was to see how Brodie cited said work) almost entirely invalidates any value this book might have had. Whether a professional historian or average reader needs an overview of the Missouri period, they will be better served by turning to LeSueur and Gentry/Compton. Throughout the book, Kinney makes many claims that are simply wrong: all copies of the Book of Commandments were destroyed, Elijah Lovejoy was killed in 1838, Mormons arrived in Utah in 1846 (he does this twice!), etc. Through communication with the publisher, hopefully many of these errors will be corrected before the book is printed. The deeper issues of method and usage of source material, unfortunately, are not quite so easily rectified.
The first chapter, dealing with Joseph Smith’s formative years, takes an entirely naturalistic approach very heavily influenced by Quinn’s Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (oddly, Kinney used only the first edition). Even when he does attempt to use contemporary sources, such as Lucy Mack Smith’s Biographical Sketches, Kinney distorts their meaning. For example, when discussing the moundbuilder culture in New England, he claims that Joseph was interested in it from a young age and determined to write a history thereof. His only source for such a claim is Biographical Sketches–not only does this source not mention anything resembling the surrounding moundbuilder artifacts, his mother clearly places Joseph’s discussion of “the ancient inhabitants of this continent” after 1823 and the proposed visitation from an angel. Positing moundbuilders as the motivation for the Book of Mormon is one thing; extracting evidence of this based solely on Lucy’s history of Joseph is simply absurd.
The chapter on Kirtland reveals another quirk of Kinney’s writing–in discussing early efforts with the Law of Consecration, he describes these endeavors as being “dubbed the ‘Kirtland Order.’” As I progressed through the book, I came to recognize that, as in this case, “dub” was some sort of signal that the upcoming term (seemingly of wide acceptance and usage) was Kinney’s creation. I am unaware of any source other than Brodie to use just such a term. The occasion of the first conference of the Church in June 1831 is another example of egregious misuse of sources. After following Brodie in describing a decidedly negative portrait of Joseph Smith, bereft of any discretion, going on a wild healing spree only to fail and cast a pall over the entire conference. Citing John Whitmer and Newel Knight for this episode (neither mention such an event) is puzzling until one realizes that Kinney has simply copied Brodie’s sources (which are describing something entirely different) without bothering to check them. (Not surprisingly, Brodie herself failed to provide a source for the disastrous healing spree.)
Kinney’s description of Kirtland following Zion’s Camp is similarly problematic. After depicting Smith’s return to an angry crowd, he turns to the papyri and translation. Kinney states that, due to this project, “Joseph Smith’s prestige was restored almost overnight.” Though certainly snippets of and references to the resultant text would emerge, Kinney portrays the church as immediately accepting this “new gospel” though, as he himself notes earlier on the same page, the text was of course not published until the Nauvoo period. Kinney next describes the poverty of the church at that point (true enough) and the welcome contributions of John Tanner for which he is claimed to have been rewarded with a “[position] of power within the church hierarchy.” Not only does the citation to RDLS [sic] Church History not deal with John Tanner, there is no evidence that he held a church position of any significance, certainly not within the hierarchy. Next, Kinney describes the creation of new hierarchal structures–though he correctly identifies the creation of the quorum of apostles and the seventies, he includes the Ohio and Missouri high councils which had been created a year earlier. Kinney then states that, concurrent with this expansion in leadership, Smith began referring to himself as president rather than prophet for some unknown reason. A quick glance at pre-1835 records shows that Smith was routinely referred to as “President Smith.” One final example of Kinney’s reliance on secondary sources during the Kirtland period comes with the Salem money trip. First, Kinney claims that Smith concealed the reason for the journey from his companions–this is based solely on Brodie, no source relating to the journey makes such a claim. Second, he creates a scenario where, after returning home with disgruntled fellow travelers to a similarly sour reception, he “makes” a revelation to smooth things over (Kinney here is following Linn’s errant reasoning in The Story of the Mormons)—the revelation in question was of course received while still in Salem and makes no effort to gloss over the reason why they were there.
As the action moves to Missouri, other glaring features of Kinney’s writing appear. As he is prone to do, Kinney makes a sweeping declaration that after another effort toward consecration, “most Mormons followed the example of Ananias and Sapphira.” Not surprisingly, no source is given for such a claim. Now that Kinney is actually discussing Missouri, comparisons with other treatments reveal his less than strenuous scholarship. When discussing the melee at Gallatin, Kinney (leaning on John D. Lee’s Mormonism Unveiled–another heavily used source) states simply that all the Mormons voted. As Gentry and Compton point out, even Lee himself (in addition to others) in a contemporary account disagrees with such a statement.
The narration of the actual conflicts between Mormons and Missourians is probably the strongest portion of the book. Here, Kinney draws heavily on the Mormon War papers in the Missouri state archive–likely the most positive element of his research. Had Todd Compton not previously made such use of this crucial source, this alone would recommend the book to a potential researcher. Despite this key source, Kinney still creates confusion where none is needed. In describing what is likely the most familiar scene of the later Missouri period–Lucas ordering the prisoners shot and Doniphan coming to their rescue–Kinney creates a mythical second court-martial to “address Doniphan’s insubordination.” In what should have served as a signal to rethink this paragraph, Kinney then writes “during the second court-martial, if it did occur.” (emphasis mine)
The final chapter on Nauvoo and (despite the chapter title) thereafter seems tacked on, almost as an afterthought. However, since the cover shows the Nauvoo temple in flames (an odd choice for a book on Missouri), excluding it would be problematic. The description of the scene at the Carthage Jail is characteristically full of claims without sources and associated problems. First, Kinney describes a letter written by Smith to Jonathan Dunham urging him, as commander of the Nauvoo Legion, to come and rescue the prisoners (Kinney here seems unaware that Willard Richards is also present). The source given here is an issue of the Tanners’ Salt Lake City Messenger–however, Kinney’s choice of words is so similar to Quinn that it seems likely he is leaning at least in part on Mormon Hierarchy: Origins. The point is somewhat moot since the letter described by the otherwise observant Quinn is a Mark Hofmann “original”–generally when scholars refer to an “embarrassment of sources” they are not referring to Jerald and Sandra Tanner buttressed by Mark Hofmann. At the jail, Kinney states positively that Joseph Smith killed two people with the smuggled six-shooter–as with the Dunham episode, even Brodie didn’t claim as much. Finally, describing John Taylor as “unharmed” following the fracas would probably not sit well with Taylor, his mangled left hip or his leg that carried a bullet the rest of his life. One last misrepresentation happens in the wrap-up paragraphs where Kinney paints all those who were present for the Battle of Nauvoo as antipolygamists who disagreed with Brigham Young. While some in the group certainly would have fit the description, the majority of them (as happened at every waystation during the move west) were simply too poor to go anywhere. Future member of the LDS First Presidency (and participant in the battle) Daniel H. Wells would likely not agree with Kinney’s description here either.
The additional material (notes, bibliography and even photo–I was confused as to how a photo of Edward Partridge, who died in 1840, could have been included until I found the same picture on Partridge’s Wikipedia page, a telling indicator of Kinney’s research) is similarly plagued with problems. Kinney frequently uses ibid following a note including several sources, leaving the reader unsure of what he is attempting to document. Even when a contemporary or near contemporary statement or piece of evidence can be marshaled, Kinney is more likely to direct the reader to a secondary source that includes the material in question. The author fails in the notes to provide alternative views on any given topic, one of the most valuable features of Compton’s work in Fire and Sword.
In short, after my initial excitement upon receiving a copy of this book, I was sorely disappointed. Despite Kinney’s stated goal in the preface of applying his lawyerly “expertise to [his] interpretation,” the final product was a mire of poorly chosen and poorly used sources. His heavy reliance on secondary sources and even wholesale copy and paste use of their sources in turn (I found that when I was confused as to why a certain work was cited, the quickest route was to see how Brodie cited said work) almost entirely invalidates any value this book might have had. Whether a professional historian or average reader needs an overview of the Missouri period, they will be better served by turning to LeSueur and Gentry/Compton. Throughout the book, Kinney makes many claims that are simply wrong: all copies of the Book of Commandments were destroyed, Elijah Lovejoy was killed in 1838, Mormons arrived in Utah in 1846 (he does this twice!), etc. Through communication with the publisher, hopefully many of these errors will be corrected before the book is printed. The deeper issues of method and usage of source material, unfortunately, are not quite so easily rectified.
February 10, 2020
Not a 5-star book, but I might have rated it 3 instead of 4, except for bias claims of several of the 1-star reviews.
Not all of them explicitly claim anti-Mormon bias by the author, but I'm operating under the working assumption that all of them are coming from that angle. And I don't see it.
Contra one other 1-star reviewer, there were several maps in the book.
OK. So, the book has been unfairly maligned by several.
This is a solid, but nowhere near great, overview of Mormons' time in Missouri, from when Joseph Smith first sent the first Mormon pioneers from Ohio to Independence, to the final driving out of Mormons from Missouri and their regrouping in Nauvoo, Illinois.
The first chapter is a good overview of the start of Mormonism within the Second Great Awakening and in the "burned-over district" of upstate New York. It also has background on Smith's family and his dad's own indulgence for the use of seeing stones and other elements of what Kinney refers to folk religion.
That said, the writing in the main section of the book is somewhat disjointed in much of the main part. Yes, more information could have been provided about who the Campbellites were, but that's not THAT big of a deal, contra yet another negative reviewer. Some parts are disjointed because records are spotty.
In short, anyone with a basic knowledge of Mormonism will get a solid understanding of events in 1830s Missouri from this book. It's not perfect; it's not great.
But it is solid.
Not all of them explicitly claim anti-Mormon bias by the author, but I'm operating under the working assumption that all of them are coming from that angle. And I don't see it.
Contra one other 1-star reviewer, there were several maps in the book.
OK. So, the book has been unfairly maligned by several.
This is a solid, but nowhere near great, overview of Mormons' time in Missouri, from when Joseph Smith first sent the first Mormon pioneers from Ohio to Independence, to the final driving out of Mormons from Missouri and their regrouping in Nauvoo, Illinois.
The first chapter is a good overview of the start of Mormonism within the Second Great Awakening and in the "burned-over district" of upstate New York. It also has background on Smith's family and his dad's own indulgence for the use of seeing stones and other elements of what Kinney refers to folk religion.
That said, the writing in the main section of the book is somewhat disjointed in much of the main part. Yes, more information could have been provided about who the Campbellites were, but that's not THAT big of a deal, contra yet another negative reviewer. Some parts are disjointed because records are spotty.
In short, anyone with a basic knowledge of Mormonism will get a solid understanding of events in 1830s Missouri from this book. It's not perfect; it's not great.
But it is solid.
November 12, 2019
2.75 / 5.0
SOMEWHAT OBSCURE TOPIC. NICE ATTEMPT AT INTEGRATING EVENTS INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF PRE CIVIL WAR MISSOURI COMPROMISE AMERICA. NICE DESCRIPTION OF INTERNAL WORKINGS OF EARLY MORMON CHURCH. NOT QUITE WHAT I EXPECTED. DRY AND NARROW BUT AUTHORITATIVE
SOMEWHAT OBSCURE TOPIC. NICE ATTEMPT AT INTEGRATING EVENTS INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF PRE CIVIL WAR MISSOURI COMPROMISE AMERICA. NICE DESCRIPTION OF INTERNAL WORKINGS OF EARLY MORMON CHURCH. NOT QUITE WHAT I EXPECTED. DRY AND NARROW BUT AUTHORITATIVE
February 16, 2016
I have begun this book recently. I have seen some of the information before such as that LDS founder Joseph Smith Jr. used divining methods to find and translate the Book of Mormon and that he had religious visions. What this book fills in is the sociological dimension: During the early nineteenth century religious revival going on at the time (I also knew that) many young people like Smith had religious visions and reported and published them. Also, the default religion of a lot of frontier people was "folk" practices (no doubt passed down from generation to generation among the peoples of Britain and the Continent, but Kinney does not go that far afield). More specific to Joseph Smith Jr., Kinney notes that Smith's family and family friends, including his father, were deeply involved in folk magic and divination. This is part of the colorful history of Mormonism. It is interesting that this legacy is downplayed by the church somewhat. Showing that all religions, however radical they are at the beginning, become domesticated over time. Another point that I knew about, but which Kinney brings home, is that the Mormons met hostility with hostility to the point of escalating the violence on both the Mormon and non-Mormon sides. In the end, the Mormons had to be driven out because there were more non-Mormons than Mormons. Smith actually compared himself to Mohammed at one point, but he was more brassy than canny when it came to spreading his religion whether charismatically or by the sword. The book also goes into the history of the Dannites, the storm troopers of the Mormon Church. (Supposedly they were disbanded a long time ago.) The Dannites were the "sword," but often were most effective in suppressing dissent and keeping people within the church in line. A point that is not emphasized enough in some discussions of the Mormon War in Missouri is that the Mormons tended to come from non-slave-holding states, whereas many of their opponents in Missouri were from slave states and feared that Mormon Missourians would vote against making Missouri a slave state. Something I wish Kinney had done that he didn't is say more about some of the other groups he mentions. For example, he mentions that some early figures in the LDS were former Campbellites. This term rings a bell, but one must go outside this book to learn anything at all about them. How about a paragraph or even a sentence to explain what this religious sect was about?
March 30, 2012
This book was hard to read.
First, physically: geography is important in telling the Missouri events, but the few maps are hidden throughout the book. So I had to find a map and keep a finger on that page as I constantly had to flip back and forth. The book is well sourced, but I had to keep another finger in the back of the book to keep up with the footnotes for that chapter. So I had to keep track of three places simultaneously as I read. If there is ever another edition, the map referencing should be improved.
Second, intellectually: I hope there is never a need for another edition to this book because it heavily biased. I had hoped to learn about the Mormon War, but instead I learned, in the author's opinion, what a bad guy Joseph Smith was. Make sure to check the author's sources: they are overwhelmingly from sources antagonist to the Mormons. When the author finally gets around to actually describe the events in Missouri, his sources are almost exclusively from the viewpoint of the Missouri victors who, of course, got to write the history; the few accounts from Mormons are only from those who "defected" to the Missourian side. Common sense tells us that there are at least two sides to every story. Except in this book. As the author progresses through the book, his viewpoint changes from being sympathetic of the poor Mormons deluded by their evil leaders, to a viewpoint that the Mormons were all "desperadoes". Before he ends his version of the Mormon war, he does not let any opportunity pass to excoriate Mormons for polygamy, the mountain meadows massacre, and other events that had nothing to do with Missouri.
If you want an unbiased report of the events, there is nothing for you here.
First, physically: geography is important in telling the Missouri events, but the few maps are hidden throughout the book. So I had to find a map and keep a finger on that page as I constantly had to flip back and forth. The book is well sourced, but I had to keep another finger in the back of the book to keep up with the footnotes for that chapter. So I had to keep track of three places simultaneously as I read. If there is ever another edition, the map referencing should be improved.
Second, intellectually: I hope there is never a need for another edition to this book because it heavily biased. I had hoped to learn about the Mormon War, but instead I learned, in the author's opinion, what a bad guy Joseph Smith was. Make sure to check the author's sources: they are overwhelmingly from sources antagonist to the Mormons. When the author finally gets around to actually describe the events in Missouri, his sources are almost exclusively from the viewpoint of the Missouri victors who, of course, got to write the history; the few accounts from Mormons are only from those who "defected" to the Missourian side. Common sense tells us that there are at least two sides to every story. Except in this book. As the author progresses through the book, his viewpoint changes from being sympathetic of the poor Mormons deluded by their evil leaders, to a viewpoint that the Mormons were all "desperadoes". Before he ends his version of the Mormon war, he does not let any opportunity pass to excoriate Mormons for polygamy, the mountain meadows massacre, and other events that had nothing to do with Missouri.
If you want an unbiased report of the events, there is nothing for you here.
January 31, 2012
Question: what happens when a lawyer, apparently completely unschooled in the art of historical storytelling, and certainly devoid of any talented at it, attempts to play historian? Answer: an otherwise fascinating historical event is retold as a rambling, bumbling mess. This book was written with the same care and talent a C student senior in high school might offer when faced with the prospect of a book report due the next day. (Which is essentially all this is: minus Faun Brodie, he would have known as much about the 19th century Mormons as I know of differential calculus.) He has no interest in historical accuracy, that is true. But far more egregious is that he has no interest in the art of storytelling!Of creative, engaging writing! A mess.
The Mormon extermination order in Missouri is a good story. Like any historical conflict, there are heroes and villains on both sides. Kinney has no interest in historical impartiality. But again, and make no mistake about what really pissed me off when trudging through this piece of useless mediocrity, dude can not write. Do not quit your day job, sir.
A turd, this one.
The Mormon extermination order in Missouri is a good story. Like any historical conflict, there are heroes and villains on both sides. Kinney has no interest in historical impartiality. But again, and make no mistake about what really pissed me off when trudging through this piece of useless mediocrity, dude can not write. Do not quit your day job, sir.
A turd, this one.
November 6, 2011
Very good read. Not many positives for the mormons. Joe Smith comes off like a cross between Jim Jones and Muhammad . This book will give pause to anyone considering electing a candidate from this fruitcake religion . Oh that comment may get me in trouble with the Dannites - Mormon KGB. I liked the beginning of the book because it covers revivalist history in the northeast in the "burned over "region before the civil war . These were the remnants of revivalism with a superstitious people entranced by magic.reports of theophanies or contact with angels were part of the spiritual routine . Hence Smith discovering tablets fit the picture . The book transitions from a good treatise on religion to a catalog of war when Smith the nutcase turns violent and starts burning out his neighbors in a quest to mormonize the whole country . I would not trust any of Smiths dupes after reading this . Be warned and vote Gingrich I guess.
June 11, 2012
I was really disappointed. I was really hoping for water tight info that would stand as a testament counter to the official church version. What I got instead was mostly just more questions. Example: He states that Joseph and Hyrum shot three, killing two,then it reads like the mob began to shoot into the room. I tried to verify this on the Internet, and just ended up with a lot of contradictory accounts. He does list a lot of source info (nearly 40 percent of the book), but a lot of it is based on a few sources that are controversial in their own right.
This brings me to my last point. I bought it for Kindle, and I wasn't careful to read the particulars of the book. It was not even 60 percent text, and it only lasted me two days. That is not a good value from my perspective. Do yourself a favor and skip this one. Next I am going to read "No Man Knows My History." Hopefully, this book will be of more use to me.
This brings me to my last point. I bought it for Kindle, and I wasn't careful to read the particulars of the book. It was not even 60 percent text, and it only lasted me two days. That is not a good value from my perspective. Do yourself a favor and skip this one. Next I am going to read "No Man Knows My History." Hopefully, this book will be of more use to me.
April 25, 2018
This was fascinating, perhaps because I live in Clay County, MO and know the places where events took place. Plus, we visited Nauvoo in Illinois last year while coming home from vacation. And we've been to the Liberty jail. The origins of Mormonism have always amazed me; why people would believe Joseph Smith's alleged "revelations" that were so obviously self-serving. He must have been one heck of an motivational speaker. The violence on both sides, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, was incredible. It truly was a war. I just wonder how much of this history the rank and file Mormon knows about. Our tour guides have represented the problems as persecution without acknowledging how much of the violence the founding fathers brought down on their own heads, and the degree to which Mormons terrorized, robbed, and burned-out non-Mormons.
September 5, 2011
This would probably be closer to 3.5 stars. I find it very disturbing that events such as the ones outlined in this book were allowed to proceed for so long in our country; it seems there were several ways the horrible results for both sides could have possibly been lessened, or even prevented, by prompt, early responses. The narrative seems evenhanded to me, with negatives and positives presented in the actions of both the citizens/government of Missouri and the Mormons. Someone of the Mormon faith would possibly not feel that way.
April 17, 2015
A fascinating look at the early Mormon church and critical moments in it's formation. This is the first book I've read on these events and will need to seek out other material to truly see how this book rates among what was published before this. Otherwise, you get a real feel from this of how new religions attempt to gain power and influence/coerce those around them; I think this should be a good reminder of just how far they will go. Overall, the book was a fairly easy read and clearly shows both sides of this confrontation as being aggressive to the other.
April 25, 2012
Did the author bring out the history?
Yes.
Did the author present the material free of bias?
Not really.
Then again, he's a lawyer...mmhhmm.
* (When you do research, you should include both sides of the story equally, unless that's not your intention.)
Yes.
Did the author present the material free of bias?
Not really.
Then again, he's a lawyer...mmhhmm.
* (When you do research, you should include both sides of the story equally, unless that's not your intention.)
December 22, 2012
Excellent book on the early history of the Mormon Church and its creators. Very enlightening.
Read
April 24, 2017Didn't finish.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews