Mormons: Why did the church have a temple "Oath of Vengeance" against the United States?

Question

For those of you who do not know about it, here is a link:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/oathvenge.shtml

For those of you who think it is made up, here is another Mormon site defending it:

http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Oath_of_vengeance

It seems odd that every Mormon I know (I live in Utah) claims to be patriotic, and yet at the core of their beliefs, there was an anti-American plea to God. These temple beliefs should not have been taken out, according to Joseph Smith, NOTHING should ever be changed regarding temple rites. That however, is another topic.

Had you bothered to look at the links, you would see that this ritual was canceled in the early 1900's due to the US government getting mad about it.

That's right, continue living in your own bubble of lies. Never look up anything about your own religion...

Answer 1

Because the LDS Church was outside of the United States when it was put into place by Brigham Young. It presented a sort of "us versus them" mentality, increasing unity and common purpose among the faith-questioning saints at the time. Combined with the blood oaths for the penalty signs, the whole temple bit gave them pretty good reason to "stay in line."

A good portion of the LDS membership (mostly the educated sector) accepts that Brigham Young introduced some pretty abominable (or at least apostate) stuff into the doctrines and practices of the church, which were later removed by more sensible "prophets." This would be one such example, as well as Blood Atonement, Adam-God (at least his version of it), men on the moon, men on the sun, the hierarchical structure for allowing polygamy, ban on black priesthood, governatorial theocracy, etc.

The appeal for the LDS Church is that it can be both changing and non-changing, and neither seems to contradict the other on the surface. If one element has never changed, it's because God doesn't change and the Church doesn't either. If something else changes (see the above examples, or polygamy, or policy on birth control, the definition of "homosexuality," regulatory rhetoric regarding the positions married couples are allowed to use when making love, etc.) it's because "God loves His children and gives continuing revelation to the prophet." If it's later admitted that the change was incorrect, then that change becomes "that one prophet's opinion." Such is the case with Adam-God (generally) and the moon-men/sun-men thing.

Trying to pull the LDS people away from the church with logic puzzles and contradictions is pretty tough, because they generally like to justify contradictions with their "trump card" of continuing revelation. If you can pin every little problem back on God, you have nothing to worry about, since He's irreproachable. The infamous "it was God's will, and we can't pretend to know His mind or His reason; we'll find out in due time" will echo resoundingly in my mind every time I hear criticism of the Church for such changes.

The more effective way of helping them come to knowledge is simply to present the facts as they are, without slant, opinion, or bias, and let them make their own connections. Some never will, but at least you won't get them into defense mode, where they will instinctively resort to the "fight or flight" principle that all animals are subject to obey.

There have been several LDS people on this site that have come to me with questions by their own will about such contradictions. A few have decided to leave, and a few have decided to stay. Some want to leave, but don't feel they can. Some have left in heart, but continue to be "LDS" on this forum and in their day-to-day lives. In these cases, the fear of change and abandonment is stronger than the desire to be honest with oneself. This, unfortunately, creates a cognitive dissonance in the mind of the questioning believer, conveniently labeled "Satan's temptation to leave," which will remain unresolved until a decision is cognitively made one way or the other.

LDS people, if you are doubting but "afraid to question," I strongly encourage you to let go of your fear, look your Heavenly Father square in the eye (figuratively, of course) and commit to Him that you will do an honest search this time, free of bias from people inside or outside the Church, and examine the facts for what they are. Truth is made up uniquely of facts, not explanations for facts. If the Church is indeed true, you will find out in due time and be stronger for it. The facts will support it and your testimony will grow. If it is false, however, (or at least misrepresenting the extent of its truth) you will find out as well. The facts will point to it. You will adjust your beliefs to the extent that you feel is necessary, and you will be able to happily move on, knowing that you did the will of your Father. If you would like, I can offer a pointer or two, but the search will need to be yours. I wish you luck. God speed!

Pinkadot: I think "hymn" is a very revisionist term for the activity that temple patrons used to do. I would say that "Adamic Gregorian Chant" is probably more accurate, except that it featured no music or tone fluctuations. It was rather monotone, actually. The UTLM has a pretty good article on it, if you'd like to see it.

Avatar_defender: Well, unless you consider Joseph F. Smith, Reed Smoot, Heber J. Grant, and the Library of Congress apostate, then there are several "non-apostate" people giving full disclosure about such an oath in a United States court of law. It was in the 1904-1907 Reed Smoot Senate Trials. You can look at it on the Wikipedia if you'd like, but you won't find exact court minutes anywhere but the Library of Congress. Jeff Lindsay has a quick blurb about it, I think.

Manaia: The FairLDS.org site is a PRO-MORMON site that defends the LDS Church. It looks like the Wikipedia because the Wikimedia company licenses its software for companies to use in similar projects. FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) pays a licensing fee to Wikimedia for this software.

In case you prefer the REAL Wikipedia, however, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance

Answer 2

Well, according to the prophet from whom I glean my wonderful avatar (but not my name; it really IS Joseph F. Smith; the middle name is different though), the oath was pretty vague. I don't understand it completely, but apparently, it was just for them to pray that God would take vengeance on the USA. Anti-american? Yes. Terrorist? Hardly. It's just one example of culture and frontier influence seeping into the doctrines of the Church. Brigham was amazingly good at that. I'm glad the leaders today are more temperate than he was.

In any case, "when the rocks and hat have spoken, the debate is over." If something comes by revelation, which all 120+ major changes in the temple ceremony most certainly have, then who are we to question it?

Answer 3

obviously you didnt read the links you supplied.

If you had youd realize the one who claimed there was an oath of vengence agains the United States was an Apostate.

Strange considering what the nation put us through despite us staying loyal to it. The Saints lead by Brigham Young volunteered to help with the Mexican American war by joining the Mormon Battalion despite the fact that the government had essentially abandoned us and driven us from the nation.

And then repeatedly applying for Utah statehood. Why would Brigham have done such a thing if there was an oath of vengence against the United States?

If you read the very links you supplied you would have seen that if there was an oath of vengence, the wording was unknown. Thus to believe there wasn an oath of vengence against the United States based only on the words of an Apostate seems downright silly to me when the evidence said otherwise.

Finally you claim that Joseph Smith said nothing should ever be changed concerning the Temple rite. Nevermind that he never said that, but if he did than the removal of such an oath if it existed would be restoring the Temple ceramony to where Joseph restored it. Because its clear such an oath would have been unnecessary before the mobs murdered the Prophet in cold blood and before the nation expelled the Saints.

Personally Ive seen enough Apostates lie about the Church to severely question when someone says something so ridiculous when there is so much evidence contrary. And if the Saints were praying for justice to be delivered, then they were entitled to it. After the government expelled, persecuted, threated, invaded, used, etc the Saints who stayed loyal to them and always were willing to help when asked, praying for justice seems only fair.

Answer 4

Do you know how many times the nation let down the Mormon people? Time after time they petitioned for relief and justice, only to be denied. I think they ran out of cheeks to turn to their enemies.

I wasn't fully aware of this oath of vengence, so I don't have any research. But just thinking it seems like America has paid dearly. The Civil War started about 10 years after Joseph died. He had a plan, that I believe, would have saved America from ever having one. Then the oath was removed in 1927. Two years later, the Stock Market Crash happens and starts the Great Depression. Hmmm.

This is very interesting, thank you. I'm interested to see others points of view.

Answer 5

I have been to the temple a lot and have NEVER made any such oath. Nothing of the sort is even mentioned in the temple ceremony.

You really need to verify your facts before you start spouting lies as truth.

Since you have been to the temple, you know that there is no such oath.

I did look at the links.- I looked at the first one and then answered. I saw nothing on the first link to make me believe that it was a reliable source. The second link seems a little more reliable- but if you read the conclusion it says that there was NEVER any oath that was taken where each individual member takes an oath of vengence, rather they ask God to seek vengence. There really is a difference.

Answer 6

Where did Joseph Smith say that the temple ceremonies should never be changed? Where's the documentation to back up this claim? I'm sure the ceremony has been updated over the years, but it retains all the teachings and ordinances necessary for salvation. Go ahead and grind your axe. There's nothing we can say that will convince you anyway. You've already decided to shut God and the Church out of your life.

Answer 7

You are missing the key ingredient, being that we have always placed justice in the hands of God. That the Mormon people were unjustly persecuted in the 19th century is unquestioned. That Saints in former times as well as present times have asked God for help in finding justice is also unquestioned and is perfectly reasonable. For naysayers such as yourself to question our patriotism by misconstruing a reasonable request for justice is ignorant, bigoted and further multiplies the ongoing injustice of our religious persecution.

Answer 8

Sounds like you just don't like the church so you are grasping at things to justify your hard feelings. ever heard the saying - You can leave the church but never leave it alone? Maybe try NOT to live up to that. If you feel is it not for you, fine. Just let the rest of us believe as we choose.

And, there have been many changes in temple ceremonies... none doctrinal. My mother-in-law said they used to sing a hymn half-way through the endowment session, well now they don't. No big deal. The temple is still the house of the Lord, saving ordinances are still performed, we still learn and grow each time we attend and we are accountable for our actions.
The gospel is true, nothing else matters.

Answer 9

DUDE

LOVE THE PORN LINKS ON YOUR SITES THERE.

Also how fairwiki tries to look like Wikipedia.

You're a real CL@$$ ACT!!!

Here's a rite you don't seem to know about...

"I the name of Messiah I rebuke you and dust my shoes and raiment at you. Wherefore repent lest ye perish."

Answer 10

The key thing to remember is that "it WAS cancelled."