Talk:Oath of vengeance

Name

Looks misnamed to me. Looks like it should be "Retribution Oath". Anyway, there is no objective reference for the naming here. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Buerger uses "oath of vengeance". I've never seen "oath of retribution" or "retribution oath" used anywhere. Snocrates 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "Retribution" was used to describe the oath in the Reed Smoot hearings by one of the witnesses: August W. Lundstrum. See Reed Smoot Hearings Vol II: pg 152-3. But most references to it are the "Oath of Vengence." Bakirish (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

It amuses me to see articles written based on merely ONE "source" for information. If one were to be truly objective about this they would have chosen sources from both sides of the story, not from someone who has fascinations with Mormons being a secret sect of the Free Masons. Silly silly people...eventually someone will write a non-bias article...I'll probably be over 100 years old though at that point. Infero Veritas (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest some other sources. In any case, there is already more than one source used here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

By definition, there is only one side to this story. Any person publicly discussing the Oath of Vengence was/will be excommunicated from the LDS Church. The Church itself will not comment. That leaves only "former Mormons." How convenient for the Church! If you can get a Church authority to comment on the Oath of Vengence, I would love to see it published here. My guess is that the most they would do is their typical song and dance about how "sacred" temple worship is and leave it at that. I am not a silly silly person. I am approaching this subject with an academic eye and the evidence that this oath did exist is overwhelming. For you to imply that we are silly because we talk about it is an emotional response showing your bias and exposing your ignorance. Bakirish (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair or accurate. The oath of vengeance has not been a part of the ceremony for about 85 years or more, and therefore there is likely no living Mormon who has made the oath or vowed to keep it secret. I'm not even sure, moreover, that the secrecy covenants extended to the oath of vengeance, because 19th century church leaders such as Heber C. Kimball and George Q. Cannon didn't seem to have a problem with writing about the oath of vengeance in their journals. COGDEN 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Factuality

The fact that almost all of the references are from one source (an avowed anti-mormon author), and the others are from senate testimony by a disaffected mormon means that at best there is a skewed point of view and at worst this article could be reporting fabrication. Until multiple better references can be produced, I think an NPOV tag is in order. Ryanfrei (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How about http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=628620&pageno=106 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrockcoyote (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the section about "In keeping with Mormon beliefs about Blood Atonement, Lee was executed by firing squad. Utah's capital punishment laws have always allowed the condemned to make a choice in the method of execution, with firing squad remaining as an option that allows for blood to be spilled on the ground," especially since the firing squad hasn't been used in Utah since the 90s, and it was removed from the list of options in 2004. Glotof (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading the above comments I became curious, so I read the "one source" (Buerger). There are numerous original sources and documents cited by the "one source" that could be used as citations for this Wikipedia article. My guess would be that the original author of the article simply used a single compendium (Buerger) of information about the topic and cited just that one source. It would be trivial to break the citations down into multiple original documents that would provide the "multiple" references that are requested above. Now, the request for a "better" source is another thing altogether. Members of the LDS Church will never agree, no matter what proof is provided, that this oath ever existed. So, they will never be satisfied that any citation is "better". Overall, I thought the article was written in a neutral manner. Although the content may fester under some people's skin, I thought objectivity and adherence to existing evidence was presented.

As a side note, execution in Utah by firing squad still exists in Utah for inmates convicted before it was removed as an option. Ronnie Lee Gardner will be executed in Utah by firing squad, as per his choice, in June of 2010 (as of this writing). Bakirish (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can characterize Buerger's work as "anti-Mormon". The main reason why Buerger is sited so much is that his is the leading (and thus far, only) significant academic work on Mormon temple worship. There are a few polemical exposés out there written by the Evangelical community, but this is the only real academic treatment of the subject. Because the work is recognized as the leading work, you would expect it to appear prominently in any article relating to Mormon temple worship. In this particular case, however, there are other sources that discuss the oath of vengeance. I know, for example, that this is covered in several works about the Mountain Meadows massacre.

On the issue of neutrality of this article, it has nothing to do with the personal views and biases of the authors cited. Just as believing Mormons can, and sometimes do, write authoritative scholarly works about Mormon theology and practice, so can and do non-Mormons (not that I'm saying Buerger no longer considers himself Mormon, which I have no idea). What counts is whether the work is a reliable source, meaning that it is recognized as citable within the field. COGDEN 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Made an effort to increase references, neutrality

This page, like many others in the Mormon section, may remain disputed as LDS believers are likely to object to any description of activities in the temple, whether or not they are still included in the rituals. However, I've tried to go through the article and increase the number of references to original documents such as speeches by Mormon leaders and official LDS publications. Can an editor take a look to see if it's more neutral and informative? Sincerely, your friendly anonymous cleanup person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.220.240 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the sources are good, but I don't think we need such large quotations in the article. It's better to paraphrase. Also, discussion of the primary sources could use some context and backup from secondary sources. If Buerger discusses these sources (which he probably does, but I don't have access to the book right now), then we should try to include that commentary if possible. There may also be other secondary sources besides Buerger that provide commentary on these primary sources. For example, several of the texts discussing the Mountain Meadows massacre also discuss the Oath of Vengeance. COGDEN 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My intent with including Eyewitness Accounts was to address the NPOV complaints. One, it added more sources, which was in answer to one complaint. And two, it totally removed the bias of a secondary source attempting to paraphrase. All but one of the quotations are directly from sworn testimony in federal or state courts of law. My thought was that primary sources would be best. How does anyone paraphrase a description of Ann Eliza young without leaning the description toward a bias. As soon as you say the words "divorced Brigham young" or "excommunicated Mormon" you are slanting the article toward the Mormon side by subtly discrediting her. If you use the words "escaped from Mormon bondage in Utah" you are slanting it toward the non-Mormon side. I would much prefer, in this instance, to see the actual testimony with links to articles about the participants where a more comprehensive discussion about the person may be found. However, most of the testimonies are given, to the best of my knowledge, by run of the mill ex-mormons. I do not know if there is any commentary information about, for example, Mrs. Annie Elliott. And even if there were, it would probably be, once again, very difficult to present it in a non-biased manner.

I would like to know if you are going to remove the transcripts of the testimonies because, in the sense of fairness, I was going to add another section presenting the LDS testimonies denying the existence of the Oath of Vengence. If you are not going to permit the verbosity, then I will not do that.

I am quickly coming to the reinforced conclusion that religion is synonymous with bias. Any article slanted toward the Mormon side is, by definition, a non-biased article according to true-blue Mormons. And the opposite is true for ex-Mormons. I do not believe, that in the area of religion, there are any unbiased secondary sources. The reason an author writes about religion is because of personal interests and motivations. There is no point of view that one can take that lends itself to neutrality.

I just today noticed that Ann Eliza Young's book is categorized at the HBLL at BYU as "Controversial Literature." And yet, the "History of Joseph Smith" by his mother Luck Mack Smith is not classified as controversial. In my opinion, the two authors share a similar documenting practice: they don't. They both are simply telling about events that happened during their life. When I read the Smith book it was obvious to me that it was the ramblings of a clueless mother that had no idea what her son was really involved in. Smith had as much interest in furthering the Mormon cause as Young had in thwarting it. But, that book is accepted by millions of people as a difinitive authority on Joseph Smith's life. I see no feasible argument why the Smith book should not also be termed as "Controversial Literature" if an equal criteria were applied to each book. So, it boils down to the bias of the "secondary" institution that labeled one as controversial and the other not.

You mentioned in another post that both Heber C. Kimball and George Q Cannon wrote about the Oath of Vengence in their personal journals. I read Cannon's testimony during the Smooth hearings and he was not willing to discuss it there, at all. So, I am very curious as to what you refer. Bakirish (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing the primary sources is perfectly fine, and a good idea. I just don't think we need to quote them, which is too much detail. We don't need to worry about "proving" that the oath of vengeance existed. There is a consensus among citable historians that it did. I don't think there's reason to quote those who denied the oath existed. (See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.) Doing so, without context, would be misleading, given that historians know their testimony was false. A better idea would be to find a secondary source that comments on these less-than-forthcoming witnesses and can put them in their proper context.

As to sympathetic Mormon sources of the oath of vengeance, I think they are probably discussed in great detail in the Mountain Meadows massacre-related sources, but Quinn (Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power) discusses this briefly on p. 249. He cites the minutes of a prayer circle in which one of the Council of Fifty said, a few days after the MM massacre, "We have covenanted to avenge the blood of the Prophets and Saints. Why, then, should we hesitate to go forth and slay them--shed their blood--when called upon." Quinn also notes that George Q. Cannon told his son that "when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the Martyrs." This is from Abraham H. Cannon's diary, 6 December 1889, p. 205. The reference to the Oath from Heber C. Kimball is from his journal dated 21 December 1845, where he said that in the temple he had "covenanted, and will never rest…until those men who killed Joseph & Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth" COGDEN 06:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the testimony transcripts from the Eyewitness Accounts section. I left a small header explaining the context of each set of testimonies and then listed the names of each source with a reference. Is that more what you were thinking? Bakirish (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink to Revenge

Although I can understand and even agree with User:Good Olfactory, who has removed the wikilink to Revenge article that I've just added to the "avenge" word in this Oath of vengeance article, that this is everyday word understood by most readers in context, I strongly think that this looking at "avenge"/"revenge" as "everyday word understood by most readers in context" is correct and useful in articles in general,

but that this approach is not good in an article as this one (Oath of vengeance), in which avenge/revenge is a major topic and so it should be wikilinked (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should be linked : "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully", "Articles with relevant information" (and may be even "Articles explaining words of technical terms", as "avenge" here is not just a common speaking, but a precise topic related to the precise topic dealt by this article). --5.170.16.65 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, a more significant problem with including that wikilink is that the article revenge is mostly about people taking vengeance on other people. That's not what the LDS oath of vengeance was about. The oath was about praying that God would take vengeance. A more appropriate wikilink would therefore be something like divine retribution or divine judgment. I'm not sure any particular wikilink should be applied though, since the meaning of the word in this context is probably somewhat different than the concept as discussed in either revenge, divine retribution, or divine judgment. If we're going to say that the oath was that the subjects would pray for something, we had better be sure that the wikilinks included in what they were agreeing to pray for accurately reflect what the subjects agreed to pray for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone ever fulfil the oath?

Any related murders, etc.? 2A00:23C5:FE18:2701:BC76:69A2:1C4D:F2C9 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)