Talk:Oath of vengeance

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikilink to Revenge 

message: Any related murders, etc.? 2A00:23C5:FE18:2701:BC76:69A2:1C4D:F2C9 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did anyone ever fulfil the oath?