I’ve come across some virulent anti-mormons who love to look at all the Danite atrocities and make mormons look bad. I know few mormons have heard of Danites, and I agree that they did break the law. But I have a hard time with people who refuse to acknowledge the atrocities committed by the mobs.

I can even empathize with some in Missouri. If a bunch of Muslims moved into my neighborhood, wanted to buy my land, and/or wanted to convert everyone to Islam to make a theocracy, I’d probably have a problem with that. Our court system and justice system is less likely to allow the sort of mob violence that happened in the Missouri frontier. Mormons love to tout the persecution angle, while antis try to justify the bad behavior of the mobs by showing mormons were involved in bad actions as well. I think Van Wagoner does a pretty good job of showing that there were bad apples on both sides.

Having said all that, if I was a follower of Joseph, I’d be pretty ticked off that mobs formed everywhere I went. I don’t think that I would have the disposition of Ghandi, allowing myself to be beaten without retaliation. I think mormons had every right to protect themselves, especially in light of the one-sided courts in Missouri.

After reading about the Danites for example, I Iooked around and found that the extent of Joseph’s involvement is pretty hotly debated. I’m ok with Van Wagoner taking a position, but I would have appreciated a heads up as to state of discussion and divergence of opinion on the matter. I felt that Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling was much better about letting the reader know that he was voicing an opinion and that there were other interpretations. Because I felt that I couldn’t really trust Van Wagoner on the Missouri stuff, it made wonder how much I could trust his interpretations elsewhere in the book.

In order to understand the Missouri period better, I have acquired the LeSeuer book and the Baugh Dissertation. I have also been reading the biography of John Lowe Butler, who was a self proclaimed Danite and lifelong member (he is also my great grandfather’s grandfather). This is a lot of reading to try and get to the bottom things but what are going to do. Anyway, I suppose I can thank Van Wagoner for getting me going on this.

Turn the other cheek – me? Probably not – would any human? I was raised believing that Mormons did turn the other cheek in the early days but I don’t believe that too much anymore. The early Mormons were no Gandis. And my direct ancestor John Lowe Butler wrote about swinging a bat at Gallatin and cracking heads – he sure didn’t turn a cheek and I take pride in his standing up for himself and his fellow Mormons. So am I and are Mormons really just like most everyone else – human?