pam Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Alma 1:13-14Â*13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.Quotes for DiscussionPresident Charles W. Penrose, speaking of capital punishment, has said:'This divine law for shedding the blood of a murderer has never been repealed. It is a law given by the Almighty and not abrogated in the Christian faith. It stands on record for all time--that a murderer shall have his blood shed. He that commits murder must be slain. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. I know there are some benevolent and philanthropic people in these times who think that capital punishment ought to be abolished. Yet I think the Lord knows better than they. The law he ordained will have the best results to mankind in general.'" (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 1, P. 189) Joseph Fielding Smith"There is a growing notion in the world today that it is adding a crime to a crime to take the life of those who deliberately murder--a cruel retaliation which cannot benefit the murdered person and likewise the murderer can reap no benefits therefrom. The real purpose which the Lord gave for the taking of life has long been forgotten. The taking of the life of the murderer was never intended to be a benefit to the murdered person or even a benefit to humanity. It was intended to be a benefit to the murderer himself. There are sins which cannot be forgiven, except by the guilty person paying a price by the shedding of his blood. Capital punishment was to benefit the guilty to obtain a better resurrection when the sin had been one unto death." (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 3, p. 104) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Hmm. Kind of a blood atonement thought, huh? Never made any sense to me. Kind of contrasting thoughts though aren't they? Kill him so the murdered blood doesn't come up against us for vengeance -and- ...intended to benefit the murderer himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Clearly there is some wiggle room in this requirement...Take the case of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies... They buried their weapons of war because they didn't wish to be tempted to murder again. While a case can be made that some of them were killed when the other Lamanites came after them... by and large the scriptures say they lived long righteous lives after they repented of their murders. No sacrificing of their own lives were necessary.Seems to me that their might be a certain level understanding required before it becomes necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Or... ...the requirement is not a requirement at all, the spilling of someone's blood has no bearing on their accountability as a murderer, and the comments on it by past leaders was opinion based and never canonized for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElectofGod Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 I really have been trying to grasp what this stuff means. I don't get it at all. There seems to be some law of heaven where suffering brings purification. I just don't get exactly why. If we sin grieviously we must "not only suffer but shed our own blood"... Than we have the righteouss side who can "volunteely" shed their own blood in behalf of the "fallen men". What does "sealing ones blood" have to do with it? How does it seal it in heaven? Its really one thing I really just don't understand about the gospel. It makes us grow faster than any other way. I understand that. But just the connection. What did Christ really suffer in Gethsemane is the greatest mysteries of all I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SQUARE Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 (edited) estradling75 Clearly there is some wiggle room in this requirement... Take the case of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies... They buried their weapons of war because they didn't wish to be tempted to murder again. While a case can be made that some of them were killed when the other Lamanites came after them... by and large the scriptures say they lived long righteous lives after they repented of their murders. No sacrificing of their own lives were necessary. Seems to me that their might be a certain level understanding required before it becomes necessary. :):):) Sorry I do not know how to to do the box things. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies did not have the Law or understanding of the Gospel. When the Gospel was taught to them they repented and did not want to Murder anymore. I think that they were not held accountable for the most part. The way the Nephites Knew the Gospel knew it as Murder. Today there are still some areas that still do not have the Law or the Gospel. If someone has had the opportunity to know the Law or has been taught the Law they will most likely be held to the standard that Joseph Fielding Smith talks about. I do not think that the Anit-Nephi-Lehies fall into this catagory. Edited April 26, 2013 by SQUARE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drpepper Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Joseph Fielding Smith - Personal opinion not Revelation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.