Question about Law of Moses and Repentance

[drewj]

To preface my question, I can't say I'm much of an OT scholar, so I may be missing a large portion of the picture. What I find confusing is that God would institute a law that would require capital punishment for certain crimes (kidnapping, sexual sins, blasphemy, hitting a parent). Now, I'm not hung up on this because I think it displays a lack of mercy on the part of the Lord-- consequences follow our actions. What trips me up about this is that if we believe that this life is a probationary period for us to work out our repentance, how would the practice of stoning someone to death for sin support that concept?

I used to understand Jesus' "go thy way and sin no more" interaction to be a rejection of that practice in the Law of Moses and a teaching about mercy. However, I've read some sources that compellingly argue that it is less of a story of mercy, and more a story showing Christ's ability to discern those who were trying to entrap Him. That because they only brought the woman and not the man, as required by the Law of Moses, and because under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed to govern themselves in some matters only (not capital punishment). Therefore, He wasn't rejecting the practice of stoning (as He had been the one to give the Law in OT times) but saying "if you're going to do it, do it by the book".

So, I guess I just fail to see how such a law supports the ultimate goal of providing salvation through repentance in this life and relying on His grace.

[Anddenex]

The majority of people in the gospel are probably not scholars of the OT, I would include myself. The Law of Moses is an outlier of sorts within God's scope of work that resulted from disobedience and thus a School Master. Strict ordinances and strict laws with strict punishments.

I think you pull out a good point to ponder a little more, as how did this fulfill God's plan of repentance and this being a time of repentance. Yet, at the same time, I have no problem with capital punishment with specific actions in life.

Just a quick change of words, Christ came to fulfill the Law of Moses, not reject it. So the experience with the woman wasn't a rejection of the Law of Moses (for the Law giver knows the law -- letter and spirit). He was fulfilling the Law of Moses, and bringing the Jews back into a higher law. In that regard, higher laws appears to follow certain principles and lower laws appear to follow principles also.

Set aside the result of capital punishment, and simple ask, is capital punishment within the realm of providing salvation through repentance? Let's review Nehor in the Book of Mormon.

When Nehor was put to death by the government law, did this action destroy the plan of God?

How would you answer this question before we discuss more?

[Fether]

2 hours ago, drewj said:

To preface my question, I can't say I'm much of an OT scholar, so I may be missing a large portion of the picture. What I find confusing is that God would institute a law that would require capital punishment for certain crimes (kidnapping, sexual sins, blasphemy, hitting a parent). Now, I'm not hung up on this because I think it displays a lack of mercy on the part of the Lord-- consequences follow our actions. What trips me up about this is that if we believe that this life is a probationary period for us to work out our repentance, how would the practice of stoning someone to death for sin support that concept?

I used to understand Jesus' "go thy way and sin no more" interaction to be a rejection of that practice in the Law of Moses and a teaching about mercy. However, I've read some sources that compellingly argue that it is less of a story of mercy, and more a story showing Christ's ability to discern those who were trying to entrap Him. That because they only brought the woman and not the man, as required by the Law of Moses, and because under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed to govern themselves in some matters only (not capital punishment). Therefore, He wasn't rejecting the practice of stoning (as He had been the one to give the Law in OT times) but saying "if you're going to do it, do it by the book".

So, I guess I just fail to see how such a law supports the ultimate goal of providing salvation through repentance in this life and relying on His grace.

Remember,

Moses left the Israelites for only a short amount of time and he came back and had abandoned the Lord and began worshipping Baal.

Almost any opportunity the Israelites had they were intermixing with other religions and adopting other’s beliefs.

I don’t think the Israelite religion would have lasted two generations if there were no strict laws in place. This also explains the genocides that God commanded the Israelites to participate in.

I think our understanding of death is skewed. We as humans naturally believe that all blessings and cursing are to be had on Earth. So when someone dies, we ask “why?!?”. In the grand scheme of things, death is nothing more than traveling from one state of existence to another. Killing someone who sins is probably not ideal, but If that is what it takes to keep the gospel in the earth, then I imagine it is worth it.

[drewj]

8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The majority of people in the gospel are probably not scholars of the OT, I would include myself. The Law of Moses is an outlier of sorts within God's scope of work that resulted from disobedience and thus a School Master. Strict ordinances and strict laws with strict punishments.

I think you pull out a good point to ponder a little more, as how did this fulfill God's plan of repentance and this being a time of repentance. Yet, at the same time, I have no problem with capital punishment with specific actions in life.

Just a quick change of words, Christ came to fulfill the Law of Moses, not reject it. So the experience with the woman wasn't a rejection of the Law of Moses (for the Law giver knows the law -- letter and spirit). He was fulfilling the Law of Moses, and bringing the Jews back into a higher law. In that regard, higher laws appears to follow certain principles and lower laws appear to follow principles also.

Set aside the result of capital punishment, and simple ask, is capital punishment within the realm of providing salvation through repentance? Let's review Nehor in the Book of Mormon.

When Nehor was put to death by the government law, did this action destroy the plan of God?

How would you answer this question before we discuss more?

Well, I think the most obvious answer (although not completely satisfying to my understanding) is that nothing, especially his own laws/commandments, will destroy God's plan. And knowing that the Lord is abundantly merciful, it's easy to suppose that he will provide a way for someone under these conditions of capital punishment to repent. It just doesn't play well in my mind with "this life is the time to prepare".

In regards to Nehor, I've always understood that the murderer "shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come". So it never bothered me too much that his mortal probation might be cut short. It's more the case of these other sins that I listed.

And in regards to Christ fulfilling the Law, I think that helps. I think we often use this story to illustrate Christ's mercy, when it seems that Christ may not have been wholly against the stoning had all the requirements as outlined by the Law been met. Joseph F. Smith even seemed to indicate that we would practice it today if modern laws permitted:

 

Quote

This is scriptural law, though it is not practiced today, because modern civilization does not recognize the laws of God in relation to moral status of mankind.

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by drewj

[drewj]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

I don’t think the Israelite religion would have lasted two generations if there were no strict laws in place.

Interesting. So you're saying that stoning for certain sins was a means of preserving the lesser Law on the earth?
 

6 hours ago, Fether said:

I think our understanding of death is skewed. We as humans naturally believe that all blessings and cursing are to be had on Earth. So when someone dies, we ask “why?!?”

In this case, I'm not so much concerned with the death alone as I am with the fact that a person's chance to fully repent in this life is cut short. If we believe that a person must repent during this mortal life, how does capital punishment under this Law leave room for that?

[CV75]

15 hours ago, drewj said:

To preface my question, I can't say I'm much of an OT scholar, so I may be missing a large portion of the picture. What I find confusing is that God would institute a law that would require capital punishment for certain crimes (kidnapping, sexual sins, blasphemy, hitting a parent). Now, I'm not hung up on this because I think it displays a lack of mercy on the part of the Lord-- consequences follow our actions. What trips me up about this is that if we believe that this life is a probationary period for us to work out our repentance, how would the practice of stoning someone to death for sin support that concept?

I used to understand Jesus' "go thy way and sin no more" interaction to be a rejection of that practice in the Law of Moses and a teaching about mercy. However, I've read some sources that compellingly argue that it is less of a story of mercy, and more a story showing Christ's ability to discern those who were trying to entrap Him. That because they only brought the woman and not the man, as required by the Law of Moses, and because under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed to govern themselves in some matters only (not capital punishment). Therefore, He wasn't rejecting the practice of stoning (as He had been the one to give the Law in OT times) but saying "if you're going to do it, do it by the book".

So, I guess I just fail to see how such a law supports the ultimate goal of providing salvation through repentance in this life and relying on His grace.

My take is that the law was a harsh schoolmaster, suited for that particular culture at that particular time. Also, the JST and other more correct translations of wording provides better context for what actually constituted capital crime (e.g. "witch" is actually "murderer").

Here is a good summary: https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/exodus-21-24-31-35-the-mosaic-law-a-preparatory-gospel?lang=eng

Just one point of many in this manual:

"Idol worship (see v. 20). Worship of a false god is to the spiritual man what murder is to the physical man, direct and devastating death. Alma the Younger understood this principle when he said of his period of apostasy, “Yes, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction” (Alma 36:14; emphasis added)." So to me, it is actually more merciful for God to order taking the physical life of such a person to prevent his further spiritual deterioration in cases where repentance (like Alma's) is not evident. I think a similar case can be made for ordering the Flood.

Edited February 2, 2019 by CV75

[Fether]

6 hours ago, drewj said:

Interesting. So you're saying that stoning for certain sins was a means of preserving the lesser Law on the earth?

Essentially yes. Even with those capital punishments the Israelites struggled keeping to God’s laws. Remove the punishments and I’m sure Baal would have been the preferred God.

6 hours ago, drewj said:

In this case, I'm not so much concerned with the death alone as I am with the fact that a person's chance to fully repent in this life is cut short. If we believe that a person must repent during this mortal life, how does capital punishment under this Law leave room for that?

Similar thoughts go through my mind, but I think we can look to Nephi’s experience with Laban as a comparison. “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” (1 Nephi 4:13).

Sure, maybe thousands were stoned and killed, but that allowed for generation after generation of other righteous Israelite.

[Starwatcher]

8 hours ago, drewj said:

Interesting. So you're saying that stoning for certain sins was a means of preserving the lesser Law on the earth?

Not answering for the person to whom you presented this question, I would say that Yes, punishment for any broken law with a mortal consequence is necessary to preserve the law.  A law without consequences is not a law, but wishful thinking.

8 hours ago, drewj said:

In this case, I'm not so much concerned with the death alone as I am with the fact that a person's chance to fully repent in this life is cut short. If we believe that a person must repent during this mortal life, how does capital punishment under this Law leave room for that?

Repentance is a lifelong process.  You have not fully repented of a sin until the opportunity to repeat its commission is gone. 

Some sins under the Law of Moses were considered by the Lord to be so serious that the law required one be removed from the possibility of repeating its commission.  But by being removed from the circumstances in which the sin was or could be committed does not remove the sinner from the ability (or need) to repent of it -- and even if the commission of the sin requires being in the body (can't rob a bank when you're dead), one can still have godly sorrow for committing the sin, and one can still be of a mindset to not sin again even if the opportunity presented itself.  The Lord said of adultery, 

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

If you can commit adultery in one's heart, without having committed it in the body, one can certainly repent of it in one's heart.

[wenglund]

Just a couple of quick thoughts

• Capital punishment, including by way of stoning, was NOT the exclusive domain of the Mosaic law. Many ancient cultures, including some that predate Moses by several centuries, instituted the practice for a variety of infractions. (see HERE and HERE). I mention this because it seems evident that, with few exceptions (perhaps those that Joseph F. Smith had in mind) that God's punishments seems to reflect that of the prevailing cultures, if not of somewhat less strident nature or applicable in fewer types of infractions. For example, prior to Moses the Babylonians instituted the death penalty for 25 different crimes (see HERE), whereas the Mosaic law covered half as many. (see HERE)  In Athens during the Seventh Century  B.C.  all crimes were punishable by death. (see HERE) In fact, by the time of Christ, stoning among the Jews had grown increasingly out of favor (see HERE), and even so, with Jesus' response to the accused adulterer, it showed a greater leniency  than that prevailing culture. Even today, there are cultures (predominately Islamic) that put people to death for a broad range of crimes, whereas the death penalty among predominately Christian nations is restricted to severe cases of murder, if that. The point being, that even if God had not instituted limited stoning under the Mosaic Law , people's probationary periods were being significantly cut short by death penalties in other cultures, which, if one assumes a just and merciful God, would mean the God has a way to compensate for that.
• Life expectancy post Moses was considerably lower than it is today.  During the Roman Empire, life expectancy was around 25 years (see HERE), where as nowadays it is about 67.5 years (see HERE) This means that the probationary state back then was less than half of what it is today, irrespective of death penalties and the like. Here again, if one assumes a just God, then one may reasonably assume that God will account for the disparity.
• Finally, while life is a probationary state and the time for men to prepare to meet God, it isn't exclusively so. I believe there may be some space in the hereafter for people to be tested and to repent and prepare to meet God. And, perhaps it is that time where those who have received the death penalty for forgivable sins, or those with abbreviated mortal probation, will have the probationary scales of justice and mercy balanced.

What I am suggesting is that even though it may seem that Mosaic death penalties conflict with life as a probationary state, God will assure that it all works mercifully and justly in the end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anddenex]

On 2/2/2019 at 12:27 AM, drewj said:

Well, I think the most obvious answer (although not completely satisfying to my understanding) is that nothing, especially his own laws/commandments, will destroy God's plan. And knowing that the Lord is abundantly merciful, it's easy to suppose that he will provide a way for someone under these conditions of capital punishment to repent. It just doesn't play well in my mind with "this life is the time to prepare".

In regards to Nehor, I've always understood that the murderer "shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come". So it never bothered me too much that his mortal probation might be cut short. It's more the case of these other sins that I listed.

And in regards to Christ fulfilling the Law, I think that helps. I think we often use this story to illustrate Christ's mercy, when it seems that Christ may not have been wholly against the stoning had all the requirements as outlined by the Law been met. Joseph F. Smith even seemed to indicate that we would practice it today if modern laws permitted:

The most obvious answer is true. If the Lord instituted a practice, then in no way does this practice destroy his plan. In our lesson this Sunday from "Come Follow Me" I was reminded of the following from Abraham, "I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right where unto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge."

There is knowledge that is only removed from us because we haven't yet learned all the principles to open the knowledge through line-upon-line obedience, which then increases our knowledge. Here is a thought one of my institute teachers proposed regarding capital punishment or when God himself punishes his children with death. He mentioned that in this case, he is putting his children in time-out where they are no longer able to commit sin. He likened it unto us parents that when a child has become unruly (they will continue to break the rules/laws), what do we do as parents? We place the child in time-out so that they: 1) Are not able to commit the same action, which prevents further mistake, 2) They have an opportunity to think upon their decision.

In the Law of Moses, it appears from scripture people who committed the sin once were more likely to do it again. Thus a harsh punishment. I am not sure, in totality, if I accept the time-out theory, but in some aspects I like this and find truth in it.

Spirit prison and spirit paradise are still both places where people are able to repent. If not, how then are people taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, showing fruits of repentance (as if judged in the flesh), and thus allowed to enter paradise if they were in prison? Even those who enter paradise, via the atonement of Jesus Christ, are still progressing toward perfection. Our probationary estate is for us to show which "countenance" we will have in the next life, and it is why I find the words of Isaiah comforting and telling, "The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and doth declare their asin to be even as bSodom, and they cannot hide it. Wo unto their souls, for they have rewarded evil unto themselves!"

During the law of Moses, those who committed sins worthy of capital punishment, moral sins, due to their countenance and desires of the heart (which God knows) their estate wouldn't change if they were permitted to remain (I am speaking of those who have the law, not those who have not the law). It measures were also to set fear in the hearts of others not to repeat the same sin, moral transgression.

If an individual were to commit adultery, and were stoned, but were of the type that if provided more opportunity they would have repented and never repeated the same mistake I would specify that God knows this and there countenance would still show such. This wouldn't ruin the opportunity but would ensure the same mistake was not made. In essence, it could actually be a saving principle for one who might repeat the same mistake if given opportunity.

Capital punishment doesn't change the outcome, but it may prevent someone who otherwise would have made the mistake to not make the mistake due to strict punishment. God already knows where we will be in the next life, those of us with law.

Joseph F. Smith's quote is correct. When we are under God's kingdom there will be laws the natural man will not like because it will merit punishment they think they don't deserve. We live within the natural man's laws and government. The natural man doesn't want to be punished for adultery, especially fornication. Under God's kingdom this will be punished and depending on law and knowledge, the punishment will be more severe or less severe. So under God's government there will be different practices which the natural man will not like.

Zion will be a place where only the righteous will want to be. The wicked will shun it. I am referring to righteous and wicked with regards to how God define such, not the natural man. The natural man looks at fornication as a good thing. The laws of God do not, and anyone who commits fornication is wicked.

But now I am rambling