Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 08:40AM

It's not surprising that Mormons howl in protest--screaming "SACRED!" at the top of their latter-day lungs--when honest efforts are made to examine the history of their secret, violence-laden Mormon temple oaths and rituals.

One of the more notorious ones in this regard was the infamous “Oath of Vengeance,” which Mormons swore against the United States government.

Into the first two decades of the 20th century, faithful, temple-attending Mormons, secretly took this Oath of Vengeance. The U.S. Senate considered it a serious enough threat to convene hearings on this Mormon temple vow and other matters related to the LDS church.

Below are some pertinent historical details regarding this Oath of Vengeance that Mormons are not inclined to talk about in openly:

“Following Joseph Smith's martyrdom [actually, Smith, armed with a pistol, was shot to death in a jailhouse gunfight after being place behind bars for ordering the destruction of a newspaper press], Brigham Young [Smith's successor] introduced an oath in the [Mormon temple] endowment which required members [of the church] to swear vengeance 'upon this nation.' It became the subject of a United States Senate investigation.

“Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have [the] Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this treasonous oath in the endowment ritual.

"The complete record of this episode was published in 'U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold his Seat,' 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906).”

When questioned about it under oath during U.S. Senate hearings, Smoot refused to divulge this secret Mormon temple Oath of Vengeance. (for a “New York Times” account of Smoot's cover-up in this regard, see: “Smoot Would Not Tell of Endowment Secrets,” in “New York Times," 23 January 1905, at: http://1857massacre.com/MMM/PDF/Smoot_01-23-1905_NYTimes.pdf ; and “Oath of Vengeance,” at: http://1857massacre.com/MMM/oath_of_vengeance.htm;)


This secret Mormon temple ritual's multi-generational Oath of Vengeance against the U.S. government was worded as follows:

“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.”

(“Oath of Vengeance,” at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/oathvenge.shtml)


With word leaking out of its existence, the Mormon church eventually removed this Oath of Vengeance was from its secret temple rituals.

Below is an overall history of this vow of vengeance and retribution against their own government, as temple-attending Mormons promised to obey it:

“One of the oaths which was formerly taken in the temple ritual was the source of so much trouble that the Mormon leaders finally removed it entirely from the ceremony. This oath was printed in 'Temple Mormonism,' pa. 21, as follows: 'You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray, and never cease to pray, and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation, and that you will teach this to your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.'\

“A great deal of testimony has been given concerning this oath, and although all of the witnesses did not agree as to its exact wording, there can be little doubt that such an oath was administered to the Mormon people after Joseph Smith's death. John D. Lee related that the following occurred after Joseph Smith's death:

“' . . . Brigham raised his hand and said, 'I swear by the eternal Heavens that I have unsheathed my sword, and I will never return it until the blood of the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, and those who were slain in Missouri, is avenged. This whole nation is guilty of shedding their blood, by assenting to the deed, and holding its peace.' .. . . Furthermore, every one who had passed through their endowments, in the Temple, were placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same, thus making the entire Mormon people sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation ('The Confessions of John D. Lee,' p. 160).

“Some Mormon apologists have maintained that there was no 'Oath of Vengeance' in the temple ceremony, but the 'Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon' makes it very plain that there was such an oath. Under the date of December 6, 1889, Apostle Cannon recorded the following in his diary:

“'About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant. . . . In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood 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.' ('Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,' December 6, 1889, pp. 205-06).

“Apostle Cannon went on to relate that [eventual Mormon church president] Joseph F. Smith was about to murder a man with his pocket knife if he even expressed approval of Joseph Smith's death.

“The Oath of Vengeance probably had a great deal to do with the massacre at Mountain Meadows, in which about 120 men, women, and children were killed, and other murders which were committed in early Utah (see 'Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?' pp. 493-515, 545-59).

“Just after the turn of the century the Mormon leaders found themselves in serious trouble because of the oath of vengeance. They were questioned at great length concerning this oath in the 'Reed Smoot Case.' The Oath of Vengeance remained in the temple ceremony, however, even after the 'Reed Smoot Case' was printed . . . . It must have been removed sometime between then and 1937, because in a lecture delivered on February 28, 1937, Francis M. Darter complained that 'The Law and prayer of Retribution, or divine judgment, against those who persecute the Saints, has been entirely removed from Temple services. . . . The reason why it was taken out, says one Apostle, was because it was offensive to the young people.' ('Celestial Marriage,' p. 60).

“. . . [T]he oaths taken in the temple were originally very crude. . . . [O]ne example here [From the Smoot hearings]—i.e., the testimony of J. H. Wallis, Sr., who had been through the temple about 20 times:

“MR. WALLIS: ' . . . [A]nother vow was what we used to call the "oath of vengeance.' . . .

“MR. TAYLER: 'Stand up, if it will help you, and give us the words, if you can.'

“MR. WALLIS (standing up): 'That you and each of you do promise and vow that you will never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets upon the nations of the earth or the inhabitants of the earth.' ('The Reed Smoot Case,' vol. 2, pp. 77-79).

“The next day Mr. Wallis corrected his testimony concerning the oath of vengeance:

“MR. WALLIS: 'In repeating the obligation of vengeance I find I made a mistake; I was wrong. It should have been 'upon this nation.' I had it 'upon the inhabitants of the earth.' It was a mistake on my part. (ibid., pp. 148-49).

(“Temple Work,” at: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech22b.htm#532)


Rest assured, you will not hear Mitt Romney speaking publicly about any of this.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Eric C. ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 08:47AM

Mormons do support the constitution. Just ask the Utah attorney generals office. Go ahead. I dare you to. But bring your check book. You must pay cash to have access to your rights in Utah. I'm not talking about trial fees. I'm referring to the fact that Utah ag's office requires bribes to allow you a citizen access to your right guaranteed under the constitution.

So. Oath of vengeance. Just talk to your bishop and he can "fix" anything. Just ask Ed Smart.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brandywine ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 08:54AM

Steve, you're the walking, talking Encyclopedia of Mormon history! Thanks for sharing :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 09:03AM


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2014 09:11AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brandywine ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 09:11AM

Awesome :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ^ ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 08:30PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: topped ( )
Date: May 19, 2017 01:42AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: May 19, 2017 11:56AM


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2017 11:56AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 09:03AM

vengeance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2014 09:12AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brandywine ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 09:52AM

I love the pun. You're a riot, and I like you :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 11:05AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ladell ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 09:48AM

Nothing has changed. Current crackpots who harp endlessly about the constitution are the ones who want to tear down the guvament. See: Bundy, Cliven



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2014 09:48AM by ladell.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 11:13AM

He said, "Hi, there. Vengeance is the name of my aftershave."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2014 11:14AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: alx71tx ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 11:54AM

This topic reminds me why its impossible to ever win an argument with a TBM, and with that in mind I'll define some English words according to "TBM English".

Constitution - a sacred document that God caused to be written and ratified in order that a country could be formed where God's True Church could be restored.

Constitutional - any action related to society or government that supports the supreme purpose of the Constitution for protecting and furthering the growth of the True Church

UnConstitutional - actions related to society or government that does not support and strengthen the supreme purpose of the Constitution for protecting and furthering the growth of the True Church

True Church - the LDS church is God's one and only true church on the earth

Prophet - the LDS church president

Truth - anything approved by the Prophet for discussion, dissemination, or belief that supports the views of the Prophet and bolsters up the True Church

Good - any action that helps the True Church, Prophet, or Truth

Bad - any action that opposes Good

False - anything that opposes the Truth, the Prophet, or the True Church

Not True (or Not Truth) - any claims or discussions about any topics that are not on the list of Prophet approved topics for discussion

Oath of vengeance - this is Not True because no information is known on this as this topic as it is not on the list of Truths (i.e. topics approved by the Prophet), and thus its moot to discuss. However if it was something put forth by a Prophet then it must have been Constitutional, Truth, and Good

Satan - He is a cunning evil being who tries to lead people away from the Truth and the True Church. One common way he does this is by getting people to discuss Not True topics.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Topped ( )
Date: May 19, 2017 01:43AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Saucie ( )
Date: May 22, 2014 12:42PM

Ok, I just have to say thank you for all the invaluable info you have given us over the years. I so appreciate it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: May 19, 2017 06:39PM

I smell a rat. If it weren't for the assassination at Carthage, the Brighamite sect would not even exist. Methinks he doth protest too much. How do we know he didn't encourage the mob, just like he offed Samuel? He didn't mind wiping out a few tens of thousands of his (self made) enemies when necessary.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: May 20, 2017 11:45AM

Good article Steve. This is a topic we can completely agree on. A secret oath of vengence is also quite cowardly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********    ******   ********    *******   **    ** 
 **     **  **    **  **     **  **     **   **  **  
 **     **  **        **     **  **     **    ****   
 ********   **        ********    ********     **    
 **     **  **        **                **     **    
 **     **  **    **  **         **     **     **    
 ********    ******   **          *******      **