OliverCowdery.com: The Premier Web-site for Early Mormon History




Preface   |   Episode 1   |   Episode 2   |   Episode 3   |   Episode 4   |   Episode 5


CRISIS  AT  KIRTLAND

Episode Four:
Murderous Threats and Plots, 1835-1837



by Dale R. Broadhurst
---(  March 2001 )---



Intro   |   Sec 1   |   Sec 2   |   Sec 3  |   Sec 4  |   Sec 5   |   Sec 6   |   Sec 7   |   Sec 8


  (This Web-Page is Still Under Construction)


CRISIS  AT  KIRTLAND  IV.


MURDEROUS THREATS & PLOTS
Section 5: Articles and Commentary
From On-Line Web-Pages & Resources



5-A. LDS Apologist Wade Englund's Comments
Endnote #3 of Chapter 35

The Tanners self-servingly quote Willis Thorton as claiming, in retrospect, "Church authorities have always described this as 'legal persecution,' and there is no doubt that some of the creditors, like Grandison Newell,... got special pleasure out of enforcing their legal rights. On the other hand, the eastern merchants who had delivered thousands of dollars' worth of goods which were sold at the Mormon stores, had a right to get such payment as they could, without the cry of persecution being raised. The plain fact is that the Mormons dissipated their physical 'stake' in a riot of speculative excess." [[7. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, January, 1954, page 32; as quoted in MSoR, p. 534.]]...

Appendix A: Questionable Sources

  • Newell, Grandison. Mr. Newell has been referred to as a "notorious Mormon hater" even by those unsympathetic to the LDS Church.(R. Kent Fielding, "The Growth of the Mormon Church in Kirtland, Ohio," p. 233; as quoted in MSoR, p. 533.) Dale Adams calls him a "rabid Mormon hater who almost single-handedly drove the Mormons out of Kirtland." [[1 BYU Studies Vol. 23, No. 4, pg. 472]]

    Max Parkin said of him, "Newell, a prosperous manufacturer who lived two miles from Kirtland in Mentor, had demonstrated contempt for the Latter-day Saints by participating in economic boycotts against Mormon workmen and merchants, by threatening a mob attack upon the Mormon community, and by hindering the missionary effort. Because the Mormons suffered from Newell's malevolence, they in return had little affection for the wealthy industrialist." [[2 Parkin -- "Conflict at Kirtland..."]] He is most know for his "vexacious lawsuits," in which he falsely accused Joseph Smith of "conspiring to take his life" [[3. B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch. 31, p.405; Elders' Journal (Aug 1838) p.58; Max H. Parkin, BYU Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, p.498 end3]]

    The case was dismissed because the Judge felt that "Newell's hatred for the Mormons induced the charges rather than the fear of assassination;" and Joseph public esteem was actually improved as a result of the trial. [[4 Max H. Parkin, BYU Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, p.500]], and he also charging Joseph and others with "illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper." [[5 Dale W. Adams; BYU Studies Vol. 23, No. 4, pg.470; see also: Marvin S. Hill, C. Keith Rooker, Larry T. Wimmer, BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 441.]]

  • Comment 1: Englund makes several mistakes is presenting his summary of Ohio vs. Joseph Smith, Jr. First of all, the case was not "dismissed." The trial record indicates that the judge heard the evidence on both sides, and then ruled that insufficient evidence had been presented to convict Smith of conspiracy to commit murder. Although Newell himself provides the fact that Judge Humphrey "insinuated" that Newell's motivation in bringing charges against Smith sprang from "hatred" rather than from "fear," neither motive accounts for Newell's actions so well as does the motive of his simply wishing to see justice done in a very real instance of the Mormons attempting to murder him (with or without Smith's knowledge). Englund is probably right in passing along the notion that Smith's acquittal improved his public image. Certainly a conviction would have provided just the opposite, however. "Public esteem" probably neither rose nor fell based upon the minutia of testimony presented during the hearing and trial.

  • All the charges were dropped except those against Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, and they were subsequently found guilty) [[6 Ibid]]

    ... The [Ohio State] court did rule, in October of 1837, that the firms issuance of notes had violated an 1816 Ohio law. Consequently, Sidney Rigdon, the firms President, and Joseph Smith, the firms Clerk, were fined a thousand dollars. However, the case was appealed on the grounds that the KSS was "an association and not a bank;" [[44. Gary Dean Guthrie, "Joseph Smith As An Administrator," M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, May 1969, pp. 80, 81, 82, 85, 86 and 88 end44]] but the appeal was never ruled on because the KSS had suspended payment, closed its doors, and the defendants had left the State upon threat of heightened persecution. [[45 Ibid]]

  • Comment 2: Historical reconstructions show that "the appeal was never ruled on" because Smith and Rigdon fled Ohio at the beginning of 1838, quite likely leaving behind an unpaid debt with their primary legal counsel, Benjamin Bissell, Esq. The Mormon leaders' lawyers did not press forward with the appeal, and besides all of that, neither Smith nor Rigdon showed any inclination to return to Ohio from Caldwell co., Missouri long enough to appear at what could have been a costly and time-consuming court appearance.

  • It is uncertain as to how the court may have later ruled on the appeal, but there is primary evidence to suggest, contrary to the hearsay conjectures presented by the Tanners [[46. "From its beginning the bank had been operating illegally. A state law fixed the penalty for such an offense at a thousand dollars and guaranteed informers a share of the fine....on February 8 a write was sworn out by Samuel D. Rounds. When the court convened on March 24, Joseph's lawyers tried to prove that the statute had not been in force at the time of the bank's organization, but they lost the case and Joseph was ordered to pay the thousand-dollar penalty and costs."(No Man Knows My History, page 198) ""...Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were forced to leave Kirtland on account of their starting of the Kirtland Bank. My father opposed it. He said it WOULD NOT BE LEGAL as they had no charter. He did not wish to have anything to do with it, but Joseph Smith thought differently and persuaded Father to sign bills as president and Joseph signed them as cashier. They gave their notes for the bills; the bills came back to the bank faster than silver could be gotten to redeem them with. And the bank went down."(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter, 1966, pages 27-28) end46]], that the actions taken by the officers of the KSS were in good faith, well intended, and, to them, legitimate: 1) the firm was operating in accordance with the advice of non-LDS legal counsel, and they believed that they had structured the firm such that it would not violate the law as they understood it; [[47. Marvin S. Hill, C. Keith Rooker, Larry T. Wimmer, BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, p.435,457-458; Dale W. Adams; BYU Studies Vol. 23, No. 4, pg.470; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Kirtland Economy; Max Parkin, "Conflict at Kirtland," page 221. end47]] the question of what constitutes "unauthorized money," as it relates to "joint stock associations" with supposed "limited financial privileges," was still being vigorously debated; [[48 Ibid]] there was the precedence of other large non-chartered firms, similarly structured, who had printed and distributed notes, but who had not been subject to litigation under the 1816 law, and had even been indirectly legitimized through state taxation of their note transactions; [[49 Ibid]] on the basis of "equal protection," the printing and distribution of notes by quasi-banking institutions were being strongly encouraged by leading political parties and prominent Ohio newspapers; [[50 Ibid]] there was argued that the 1816 statute was "not in force" because it was internally inconsistent, "obsolete and inoperative," and was implicitly repealed by the act of 1824. [[51. Marvin S. Hill, C. Keith Rooker, Larry T. Wimmer, BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, p.439. end51]]

    As an aside, there should be noted that the lawsuit which brought this case to trial was not a product of conscientious people being motivated by their strong objection to quasi-banking institutions issuing "unauthorized money." Dale Adams explains, "uniform opposition to these quasi banks did not appear until after most banking establishments in Ohio encountered serious financial problems as a result of the economic turmoil that began in 1873." [[52]]

    Instead, it appears to have been motivated by deep-seated hatred for the LDS. The Tanners, through Fielding, even admit that, "there was widespread belief that the notorious Mormon hater Grandison Newel was behind it, that it was trumped up." [[53]] (Please see Appendix A, Newel, Grandison) Scholar[s] agree, and suggest that:
    "the most interesting feature of the Rounds cases that were prosecuted against Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon and that established the illegality of the Society is their apparent sponsorship. So far as we are aware, Samuel D. Rounds is a person having no prominence, or dealings with Joseph Smith for the Church and its members, except for these law suits. His name simply appears nowhere else. The Geauga County Execution Docket, however, states that the judgments against Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were assigned to Grandison Newell, who sought to collect them, and did obtain partial satisfaction in the amount of $605. Newell was a bitter enemy of Joseph Smith and the Mormons. It apparently was general knowledge at the time that Newell was behind Round's lawsuits against the Society, for a contemporary citizen of Kirtand, reprinting in his personal reminiscences a letter from him to the Painesville Telegraph (that evidently was never published), says: 'The facts are that Perkins and Osborne were attorneys for Granison [sic] Newell in the prosecution of Smith and Rigdon for illegal banking.' Joseph Smith's assertion that the anti-bank litigation was stirred up by his enemies, a charge which has not been connected to Rounds, is most likely true, because it evidently refers to Newell. If this interpretation of the evidence is correct, Newell himself may have been guilty of stirring up and maintaining litigation in the names of others, which was a crime known as "maintenance" at the common law." [[54. Marvin S. Hill, C. Keith Rooker, Larry T. Wimmer, BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, p.441. end54]]
    It is likely that Grandison Newel was one of several people who, as described by the avowed anti-Mormon, Eber Howe (see Appendix A, Howe, Eber D.), had conspired to rid Ohio of the Saints through the use of vexatious lawsuits. [[55. "E. D. Howe, publisher of the Painsville Telegraph, indicated that suits were devised to hinder the Church's progress in Ohio: '... many of our citizens thought it advisable to take all the legal means to counteract the progress of so dangerous an enemy in their midst, and many lawsuits ensued.'"(E. D. Howe, Autobiography, p.45; as quoted by Max Parkin, "Conflict in Kirtland," p.211.) end55]]

  • Comment 3: Englund raises here the interesting possibility that some or all of the lawsuits directed at the Mormons at Kirtland by their non-Mormon neighbors were "vexatious" legal proceedings, instigated in order to "rid Ohio of the Saints." There may be considerable truth in this estimation. However, without first conducting an investigation of the various charges, decisions, and results of those many court cases, it is useless for any serious researcher of Mormon history to offer such a possibility as established fact. When convert Fanny Brewer came to Kirtland in the spring of 1837, she found "found brother going to law with brother." It might be useful to also compile information on the various lawsuits conducted among the Saints themselves, including both those processed by Church courts and the civil courts. It is entirely possible, that by the end of 1837, deep-pocketed Geauga county Gentiles were underwriting the costs of certain legal battles instigated against Smith's followers by the "reformers" (or "apostates," to use the language of some) within a rapidly deteriorating Kirtland Mormonism. At any rate, it is not likely that all the legal battles of 1836-38 were without substance. While many non-Mormons may have anticipated the day that Smith and his loyalists fled the state, they probably still looked for more immediate satisfaction in winning their own respective cases in court. Many Latter Day Saints remained in Kirtland for years after Smith fled the scene. These included Mormon loyalists as well as the old "apostates" like Martin Harris, Warren Cowdery, etc. It appears that once Smith had taken his departure, that the number of "vexatious" legal proceedings dropped off wondrously.



  • 5-B. Anti-Mormons Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Comments
    Salt Lake City Messenger #88
    (Salt Lake City: ULM May 1995)

    "A FIGHTING PROPHET"

    In his book, The Mormon Hierarchy, Quinn points out that as time went on Joseph Smith became progressively concerned about having a large army and sought for military power:

    "Zion's Camp did not redeem Zion, but it transformed Mormon leadership and culture. In February 1834, the Kirtland high council elected Joseph Smith as 'commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel.' This was one of the first acts of the newly organized high council which thus acknowledged Smith's religious right to give God's command to 'go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people.' Zion's Camp was the first organization established for the external security of Mormonism. A year later, the military experience of Zion's Camp (rather than any ecclesiastical service) was the basis upon which Smith said he was selecting men for the newly organized Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy. Unlike other American denominations, 'the church militant' was a literal fact in Mormonism, not just a symbolic slogan." (The Mormon Hierarchy, page 85)
    Unlike the gentle and soft spoken man shown in Legacy, Joseph Smith was without question a fighting prophet. He not only liked to wrestle and prove his strength, but he sometimes kicked people and struck them very hard. D. Michael Quinn observed that Smith was a "church president who physically assaulted both Mormons and non-Mormons for insulting him..." (The Mormon Hierarchy, 261-262)

    Under the date of March 11, 1843, we find this entry in Joseph Smith's History: "In the evening, when pulling sticks, I pulled up Justus A. Morse, the strongest man in Ramus, with one hand." (History of the Church, vol. 5, page 302). Two days later the following was recorded: "Monday, 13. -- I wrestled with William Wall, the most expert wrestler in Ramus, and threw him." (Ibid., 302)

    Under the date of June 30, 1843, we find this: "I feel as strong as a giant. I pulled sticks with the men coming along, and I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up..." (Ibid., page 466)

    Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith claimed that "the Prophet Joseph Smith had one day broken the leg of my brother Howard, while wrestling..." (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, And Present Condition, page 52)

    John D. Lee related that one day Joseph Smith and some of his men were wrestling. Because it was "the Sabbath day" Sidney Rigdon tried to break it up. Joseph Smith, however, "dragged him from the ring, bareheaded, and tore Rigdon's fine pulpit coat from the collar to the waist; then he turned to the men and said: 'Go in, boys, and have your fun.' " (Confessions of John D. Lee, pages 76-78)

    Jedediah M. Grant, a member of the First Presidency under Brigham Young, told of "the Baptist priest who came to see Joseph Smith.... the Baptist stood before him, and folding his arms said, 'Is it possible that I now flash my optics upon a man who has conversed with my Savior?' 'Yes,' says the Prophet, 'I don't know but you do; would not you like to wrestle with me?' That, you see, brought the priest right on to the thrashing floor, and he turned a sumerset right straight. After he had whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head, he concluded that his piety had been awfully shocked..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pp. 66-67)

    While this may have seemed funny to President Grant, Joseph Smith had a violent temper which could lead to physical violence. His close friend Benjamin F. Johnson made this observation after Smith's death:

    "And yet, although so social and even convivial at times, he would allow no arrogance or undue liberties. Criticisms, even by his associates, were rarely acceptable. Contradictions would arouse in him the lion at once. By no one of his fellows would he be superseded.... one or another of his associates were more than once, for their impudence, helped from the congregation by his foot.... He soundly thrashed his brother William... While with him in such fraternal, social and sometimes convivial moods, we could not then so fully realize the greatness and majesty of his calling." (Letter by Benjamin F. Johnson to Elder George S. Gibbs, 1903, as printed in The Testimony of Joseph Smith's Best Friend, pages 4-5)
    Mormon writer Max Parkin refers to a court case against Joseph Smith in which Calvin Stoddard, Joseph Smith's brother-in-law, testified that, "Smith then came up and knocked him in the forehead with his flat hand -- the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard -- made him blind -- that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness..." (Conflict at Kirtland, citing from the Painesville Telegraph, June 26, 1835)

    Parkin also quotes Luke S. Johnson, who served as an apostle in the early Mormon Church, as saying that when a minister insulted Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio, Smith, " ‘boxed his ears with both hands, and turning his face towards the door, kicked him into the street,' for the man's lack of charity." (Ibid., page 268)

    In the History of the Church for the year 1843, we read of two fights Joseph Smith had in Nauvoo:

    "Josiah Butterfield came to my house and insulted me so outrageously that I kicked him out of the house, across the yard, and into the street." (History of the Church, vol. 5, page 316)

    "Bagby called me a liar, and picked up a stone to throw at me, which so enraged me that I followed him a few steps, and struck him two or three times. Esquire Daniel H. Wells stepped between us and succeeded in separating us.... I rode down to Alderman Whitney... he imposed a fine which I paid, and then returned to the political meeting." (Ibid., page 524)
    On August 13, 1843, Joseph Smith admitted that he had tried to choke Walter Bagby: "I met him, and he gave me some abusive language, taking up a stone to throw at me: I seized him by the throat to choke him off." (Ibid., page 531)

    After he became president of the Mormon Church, Brigham Young commented, "if you had the Prophet Joseph to deal with, you would think that I am quite mild.... He would not bear the usage I have borne, and would appear as though he would tear down all the houses in the city, and tear up trees by the roots, if men conducted to him in the way they have to me." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, pp. 317-318)

    While Mormon writer John J. Stewart claimed that Joseph Smith was "perhaps the most Christ-like man to live upon the earth since Jesus himself," this conclusion is not supported by Joseph Smith's History: "I am not so much a 'Christian' as many suppose I am. When a man undertakes to ride me for a horse, I feel disposed to kick up and throw him off, and ride him." (History of the Church, vol. 5, page 335)

  • Comment 1: The Tanners present their string of pearls demonstrating that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a violent man in their usual inimitable style. But truth, like beauty, is often "in the eye of the beholder," and after all is said and done, they have accomplished little more than showing that Smith was a man of his times, a man of low birth and breeding who was often tempted to resort to brawn rather than finesse in order to get things done. Had they taken the trouble, they might have added many other anecdotes about Smith's street brawls and backhanded admonitions of Saint and Gentile alike. What the Tanners no doubt have overlooked in their zeal (of painting Smith with the blackest brush they could find), is that many of his "low-class" followers felt endearment rather than resentment, in being in the presence of a "prophet" not much better than themselves. Smith was quite a success with the sons of the "second tier" back from the frontier, with the sons of pioneers and the daughters of rebels. It was only when the more refined products of the British Mission Field began to pour into Nauvoo that a significant percentage of his followers began to be appalled at what they saw in the man.

  • In addition to choking, kicking people out of houses and churches, knocking them in the head, boxing their ears, and tearing their clothing, the evidence indicates that he threatened people's lives. Dr Quinn reported the following: "In an incident about which Smith's personal diary and official history are completely silent, he was acquitted in June 1837 of conspiring to murder anti-Mormon Grandison Newell. The silence may be due to the fact that two of Smith's supporting witnesses in the case, both apostles, acknowledged that the prophet discussed with them the possibility of killing Newell. Apostle Orson Hyde testified that 'Smith seemed much excited and declared that Newell should be put out of the way, or where the crows could not find him; he said destroying Newell would be justifiable in the sight of God, that it was the will of God, &c.' Hyde tried to be helpful by adding that he had 'never heard Smith use similar language before,'... Apostle Luke S. Johnson acknowledged to the court that Smith had said 'if Newell or any other man should head a mob against him, they ought to be put out of the way, and it would be our duty to do so.' However, Johnson also affirmed: 'I believe Smith to be a tender-hearted, humane man.' Whether or not the court agreed with that assessment, the judge acquitted Smith because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of conspiracy to commit murder." (The Mormon Hierarchy, pages 91-92)

    One of the biggest problems that confronted Joseph Smith was dissension within the ranks of his own church. Mormon historical records demonstrate that Smith not only felt that he was superior in physical strength to most men, but he also believed he had the inside track with God. He even went so far as to boast that he had been more successful than Jesus Himself in setting up a church...

  • Comment 2: Regardless of what Smith or Rigdon may have said in an occasional, offhanded comparison of themselves to Jesus Christ, the Tanners have not provided much here in the way of proof that Smith was an evil man, or even a bad man. If he was either of these, he was also a rather crafty man, for he managed to walk out of the Chardon courthouse on June 9, 1837 acquitted of the charge of conspiring to murder Grandison Newell. The Tanners could have made a much better case for their thesis by invoking the testimony of a William Law or even a John C. Bennett. A five minute reading of Wilhelm von Wymetal's 1886 book should have provided these anti-Mormons with enough Smith-bashing fodder to fill up a dozen "messenger" web-documents. And, they would have gained the added advantage of at least a few of all those stories being true ones. No doubt Smith could be (and sometimes was) a violent man. Perhaps he really did order the murder attempt on former Missouri Governor Boggs (or upon Grandison Newell, for that matter). But, if this is fact, and not just fantasy, then the Tanners, or anyone else seeking to establish these sorts of allegations, must first show their readers why this was so, and how Smith was able to perform so many works of darkness without being caught, convicted, and sentenced to years in a jail cell long before he checked in for that short stay at Liberty in 1838. The raw material be laying about with which even the Tanners could fashion a rope strong enough to hang Joseph Smith, Jr. The fact that has not yet been done probably speaks for itself.



  • 5-C. Web-page Mirroring the Tanner's Comments
    Was Joseph Smith a Violent Man?

    Joseph Smith's close friend, Benjamin F. Johnson, made this observation after Smith's death:

    "And yet, although so social and even convivial at times, he would allow no arrogance or undue liberties. Criticisms, even by his associates, were rarely acceptable. Contradictions would arouse in him the lion at once. By no one of his fellows would he be superseded.... one or another of his associates were more than once, for their impudence, helped from the congregation by his foot.... He soundly thrashed his brother William... While with him in such fraternal, social and sometimes convivial moods, we could not then so fully realize the greatness and majesty of his calling." (Letter by Benjamin F. Johnson to Elder George S. Gibbs, 1903, as printed in The Testimony of Joseph Smith's Best Friend, pages 4-5)

    Mormon writer Max Parkin refers to a court case against Joseph Smith in which Calvin Stoddard, Joseph Smith's brother-in-law, testified that, "Smith then came up and knocked him in the forehead with his flat hand -- the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard -- made him blind -- that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness..." (Conflict at Kirtland, citing from the Painesville Telegraph, June 26, 1835)

    Parkin also quotes Luke S. Johnson, who served as an apostle in the early Mormon Church, as saying that when a minister insulted Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio, Smith, " ‘boxed his ears with both hands, and turning his face towards the door, kicked him into the street,' for the man's lack of charity." (Ibid., page 268)

    In the History of the Church for the year 1843, we read of two fights Joseph Smith had in Nauvoo:

    "Josiah Butterfield came to my house and insulted me so outrageously that I kicked him out of the house, across the yard, and into the street." (History of the Church, vol. 5, page 316)

    "Bagby called me a liar, and picked up a stone to throw at me, which so enraged me that I followed him a few steps, and struck him two or three times. Esquire Daniel H. Wells stepped between us and succeeded in separating us.... I rode down to Alderman Whitney... he imposed a fine which I paid, and then returned to the political meeting." (Ibid., page 524)

    On August 13, 1843, Joseph Smith admitted that he had tried to choke Walter Bagby: "I met him, and he gave me some abusive language, taking up a stone to throw at me: I seized him by the throat to choke him off." (Ibid., page 531)

    After he became president of the Mormon Church, Brigham Young commented, "if you had the Prophet Joseph to deal with, you would think that I am quite mild.... He would not bear the usage I have borne, and would appear as though he would tear down all the houses in the city, and tear up trees by the roots, if men conducted to him in the way they have to me." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, pp. 317-318)

    In addition to choking, kicking people out of houses and churches, knocking them in the head, boxing their ears, and tearing their clothing, the evidence indicates that he threatened people's lives. Joseph Smith was tried in 1837 for conspiracy to commit murder On of his apostles, Orson Hyde, testified that "Smith seemed much excited and declared that [Grandison] Newell should be put out of the way, or where the crows could not find him; he said destroying Newell would be justifiable in the sight of God, that it was the will of God, &c." Joseph Smith was acquitted by the judge for lack of evidence. (The Mormon Hierarchy, by D. Michael Quinn, pages 91-92.)

    Tensions in Kirtland led to extraordinary effort at intimidation by LDS leaders in November 1836. Seventy one Mormons, led by Joseph Smith and other general authorities, signed a warning to the non-Mormon justice of the peace to "depart forthwith out of Kirtland." A dozen of those signers later joined the "Danites" in Missouri. John Whitmer was of the opinion that this event was the beginning of "secret combinations" in Kirtland. (Ibid., page 91)





    Back to Top of This Web-Page



    Return to "Crisis at Kirtland"   Introduction
    Return to: OliverCowdery.com


    last revised: Mar. 2, 2001