chrisrb Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 1. The taking of innocent life is an unforgivable sin. (Premise: LDS doctrine.) 2. Any Earthly system of justice is prone to error and wrongful convictions, and since all death penalty cases are decided by Earthly systems of justice, the death penalty will sometimes be wrongfully applied to innocent people. (Modus ponens.) 3. Therefore, the death penalty will inevitably result in the commission of unforgivable sins. (Hypothetical syllogism.) 4. Committing unforgivable sins should be avoided at all costs. (Premise: common sense.) 5. Therefore, the death penalty should be avoided at all costs. (Modus ponens.) --- Those who believe LDS doctrine must, therefore, oppose the death penalty. (Q.E.D.) ===== Can anyone find a flaw in the argument above? I cannot.
CrimsonKairos Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Yeah, in the scriptures (even the D&C) God commands the murderer to be killed. Other than that, I enjoyed your syllogisms.
Elgama Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the question of whether and in what circumstances the state should impose capital punishment as a matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law. We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment." This what the church has to say on the matter in its news releases - so I guess really its not a huge deal either way. Personally as a Brit I grew up with the idea that removing the death penalty in the 1960s was a sign of a society that had moved from something that was barbaric, like torture chambers, and branding it was a thing that belonged to a more violent past, my Grandparents actually knew our last hangman, by all accounts he was a decent god fearing man guessing as my Grandparents knew him he was also a drinker (they managed a pub) - I do rather see the death penalty as the sign of a less civilized society and an abuse of human rights, I have an issue with us handing criminals over to the US because of it any other country with the death penalty the law would prevent it. But its not murder as the Lord sees it, unless there was a deliberate act that caused a wrongful conviction then I guess the people responsible for that would be a murderer, like in the cases where there is a clear miscarriage of justice-Charley
chrisrb Posted January 21, 2008 Author Report Posted January 21, 2008 Yeah, in the scriptures (even the D&C) God commands the murderer to be killed.Other than that, I enjoyed your syllogisms.===How can you be sure you have the actual murderer so that "the murderer can be killed" as you say God commands?Did you read the argument above?The whole point is that innocent people are convicted of capital crimes and put to death all the time (new DNA analysis techniques demonstrate have now demonstrated the alarming frequency of this government sponsored killing of innocent people, murdered by mistake by the state) ... that since LDS doctrine clearly says that taking innocent life is an unforgivable sin, the practice of capital punishment necessarily leads to the commission of unforgivable sins ... and since common sense dictates that committing unforgivable sins (as inevitably must happen as direct result wherever capital punishment is practiced) must be avoided at all costs, the death penalty must not be supported by those who believe the LDS of unforgivable sin, as all orthodox Mormons should.If we are not to shop on Sundays because doing so encourages others to sin ... how in the world is it okay for us to encourage others to commit unforgivable sins by supporting or even participating in (as, say, the prosecuting attorney does) the process of capital punishment?Isn't that just a wee bit inconsistent?
HiJolly Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Premise #1 is incorrect. Therefore, the entire logical chain is invalid. Christ Himself forgave the Roman soldiers who shed His blood. Therefore, the shedding of innocent blood can be forgiven, as per scripture. Also, the application of the view of premise #1 to society as a whole is invalid, based on the doctrinal statement it is based on (D&C 132), which is addressing individuals. HiJolly
the_jason Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 1. The taking of innocent life is an unforgivable sin. A person who commits murder no longer has an innocent life2. Any Earthly system of justice is prone to error and wrongful convictions, and since all death penalty cases are decided by Earthly systems of justice, the death penalty will sometimes be wrongfully applied to innocent people. While this does happen, it's not the norm. The majority of criminals on death row are there deservedly.3. Therefore, the death penalty will inevitably result in the commission of unforgivable sins. Not true. Refer to the answer to question 1.4. Committing unforgivable sins should be avoided at all costs. Of course it should, but again refer to question 1.5. Therefore, the death penalty should be avoided at all costs. I disagree. The scriptures give many examples of instances where capital punishment was carried out and justified in the eyes of God.Those who believe LDS doctrine must, therefore, oppose the death penalty.(Q.E.D.)=====Can anyone find a flaw in the argument above? I cannot. I believe LDS doctrine, and I also believe in the death penalty. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
chrisrb Posted January 21, 2008 Author Report Posted January 21, 2008 You mean arguments are true or false based purely on your own individual personal beliefs?That's quite an ego.You must an amazing guy, the universal judge and "decider" of truth and falsehood, whose beliefs are never wrong, and upon which all other people can always securely rely.Wait a minute ... isn't that God?I'm confused ... are you a human being, with at least occasionally faulty perceptions and beliefs, or are you God, who is never wrong about anything?Please clarify.Chrisrb- quit baiting. You posted this topic at the MAD boards and got your head handed to you.Knock off the snark and post something substantive or find another playground. Honos---By the way ...I think there is, however, a legitimate flaw in my argument.Taking innocent life cannot be an unforgivable sin if done by accident, because sinful motivation is a requirement for all sin, and accidents do not involve sinful motivation. If choices made without negative intent could result in negative spiritual consequences, it would mean that God was not just, but capricious ... that no law of "karma" existed (the universal "fairness" doctrine). If both good and bad motivations could result in bad (or good) reviews by God, then it wouldn't really matter whether one made good or bad choices, essentially destroying the notion of choice of agency (a Godly principle which God Himself cannot violate, by definition).So, it appears I was wrong.The argument I proposed had a faulty premise (i.e. the taking of innocent life is NOT always an unforgivable sin), and therefore a faulty conclusion.Apparently, it is not logically necessary, if one believes LDS doctrine, to oppose the death penalty.I stand corrected.
the_jason Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Whoa, dude! I never once implied that I was God or that my statements are absolute truths. They are my personal beliefs and opinions. Don't ask questions or make statements if you aren't prepared to get a response.
chrisrb Posted January 21, 2008 Author Report Posted January 21, 2008 Here's what you said: --- I believe LDS doctrine, and I also believe in the death penalty. Therefore, the argument is flawed. --- Your argument was that you were right because you believe yourself to be right. That's a pretty ego-centric standard. According to your own words, there for all to see, you think your beliefs are all that's necessary to prove the truth or falseness of an argument. Again, that's quite an ego ... Your beliefs or opinions, by themselves, do NOT define whether or not an argument is sound ("I believe ... I believe ... therefore the argument is false."). My argument was unsound becuase it contained a faulty premise ... not because the_jason believes this or that. There's only One who's beliefs by themselves are perfectly reliable. Who's that? (Hint: it's not you).
a-train Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Whether our nation's justice systems utilize capital punishment or not does not determine the humanity or piety of the state. In fact, the state is incapable of either. It is the individual alone who can be good or bad, filled with hate or charity. I oppose any federal use of the death penalty. I believe that only a jury of one's peers can make such a determination. We must allow the Church to speak for itself on the matter, and as already stated, the Church makes no attempt to direct the processes of civil law. I don't believe the availability of the death penalty to the courts of this land is in itself a crime or sign of evil. It is the deceit and injustice within the process of law conducted by lawyers and criminals in the effort to gain wealth that is evil. Regardless of the penalties involved, injustice can take no good form no matter what deprivation of a man's liberty it inflicts. Let us seek to remedy injustice at its root rather than at it's fruit. -a-train
the_jason Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Here's what you said:I believe LDS doctrine, and I also believe in the death penalty. Therefore, the argument is flawed.I said that in response to your statement: "Those who believe LDS doctrine must, therefore, oppose the death penalty." Your statement is flawed in that I believe LDS doctrine and I also support the death penalty, so your statement doesn't apply to me and is therefore inaccurate.Also known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. the_Jason's position contradicts and therefore disproves the initial premise. Now, play nice or we're closing the thread. Honos
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 There are two factors that are weakening American resolve concerning the death penalty.1. Those sentenced to death are disproportionately people of color and people without means. There is a perception (one that I would argue is true), that a murderer who can act and look humbled, and one who has enough money, can avoid the death penalty. Since this involves the ultimate, non-reversable penalty, many people are beginning to question the justice of it.2. Mistakes are made--perhaps more than we have thought. What margin of error is permissable? 1%? 5%? At what point do we say that the margin is too great, so we will not invoke the ultimate, non-reversible punishment.A third factor, ironically, is cost. It's cheap to house an inmate indefinitely than it is to pay for the extensive legal procedures a capital punishment case involves.
the_jason Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 You make some good points, pc. Obviously, one person falsely punished is too many. While the system of capital punishment isn't without error, I'm all for the idea of it. In a perfect judicial world (which is an oxymoron), it is absolutely the right thing to do.
MorningStar Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 I also believe that it is not shedding innocent blood to put a murderer to death. What's innocent about a murderer's blood? Church members are free to have opposing views regarding the death penalty. I'm for it.
checkerboy Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Those who believe LDS doctrine must, therefore, oppose the death penalty. Hey chris thanks for telling me what i must believe. Wait someone else had a plan like that... ummm... maybe ..... SATAN!!!!
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Morning Star--the argument is that if we become aware that our justice system is, for example, five-percent inaccurate. In other words, five of the hundred inmates we execute was innocent, then can we continue to impose this penalty in good conscience? Maybe the answer is yes. But, it's a question we have to consider, if we've been commanded not to she innocent blood. Checkerboy, Chris was making a logical debate presentation, giving a typical "If A then B," argument." In this case, "If LDS doctrine is A, then LDS should vote or support B." Why would you find it necessary to turn this into something else?
the_jason Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Checkerboy, Chris was making a logical debate presentation, giving a typical "If A then B," argument." In this case, "If LDS doctrine is A, then LDS should vote or support B." Why would you find it necessary to turn this into something else?I took it the same way Check did. I don't believe chris was making an if/then statement but rather trying to dictate how a person is supposed to believe.
WANDERER Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 · Hidden Hidden Hi Chris. I'm against capital punishment. I guess I feel that if I'm not comfortable with participating in it how can I ask anyone else to watch or administer it? But in Australia we don't have the death penalty, though at one time we did. Everyone here has their own perspective on whether it should be introduced or should stay the way it is. There are some things that people have to work out for themselves in terms of what they believe is right, each according to their conscience.
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 Maybe it's because I was in debate in high school. But, in the OP, Chris even asks, "Does anyone see an error in my argument?" He's calling for back & forth debate/dialogue...not dictating what every good LDS person must believe. In a later post he even spells out an error in the argument that he discovers himself. SIGH. I guess formal debate is a dying art.
the_jason Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 You're correct, but then when I answered his question, based on my own opinions, he said I was trying to be God and say that my way was the only way. That sounds more like an attack than a debate, to me.
Canuck Mormon Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 I saw it both ways. I saw it as a chance for discussion, but also an "if you belive a then you must believe b". I for one am for capital punishment, under certain circumstances, ie. child molesters, child abusers, killers. I am also for "jailhouse" justice as well, if they don't get the death penalty. I'm also not your typical Canadian.
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 No, Canuck. You're not typical for a Canadian. Then again, being typical (in any country) is overrated. :-)
VisionOfLehi Posted January 22, 2008 Report Posted January 22, 2008 Just posting bits... Didn't read EVERY post, but I skimmed.Articles of Faith 1:12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.Leviticus 19:15 ¶ Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.JST Matt. 7: 1-2 Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.Alma 42: 25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. Just throwing these out there... I wouldn't vote for the death penalty myself. This is my stance. I love the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, too. Mormon 7:4 Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war, and delight no more in the shedding of blood, and take them not again, save it be that God shall command you.I've not been commanded!
NateHowe Posted January 22, 2008 Report Posted January 22, 2008 This argument is an example of external philosophies being applied to the Gospel of Christ. If we examine the Gospel through the lens of our political ideas, our interpersonal biases, or the teachings of external sources, we are likely to find baseless fault with the Gospel, or to manufacture inaccurate, yet convincing, contradictions. The answer is to see all external matters through the lens of the Gospel, and to realize the place of law and the place of religion. Government is responsible to appropriately punish civil and criminal offenses. Religion can take disciplinary action for offenses toward God. In the area of the law where a criminal offense is also a religious offense, religious punishment is only effective within the religious sphere, and the law only has effect in the legal sphere. If I kill, the Church has the obligation to deal with me on a religious level. I would most likely be excommunicated. As representatives of God, they may advise me of certain problems I will have in the hereafter as a result. That is the extent of the Church's sphere. Then the government must try and punish me in accordance with the law. If I knowingly murder in a nation where capital punishment is the law, I should expect to receive such punishment if I am guilty. That is a clear-cut legal expectation. To expect anything else is like walking down the aisle at the grocery store, picking up items, and then being shocked and outraged when the clerk demands payment on the way out. Let government govern, and let the Church point the people to God, and may they serve their functions separately until Christ comes again to set things in the order He would have.
CrimsonKairos Posted January 22, 2008 Report Posted January 22, 2008 How can you be sure you have the actual murderer so that "the murderer can be killed" as you say God commands?Video of the act of murder. DNA evidence. Confessions. Multiple eye-witnesses. Good police work. All of the above. While humans are fallible, we've gotten pretty good at investigating crimes.Its not like every death penalty conviction was the result of flipping a coin....that since LDS doctrine clearly says that taking innocent life is an unforgivable sin...What do you mean by "unforgivable?"Even murderers will receive a place in the Telestial Kingdom (see D&C 76).D&C 132 is not talking about one man murdering another when it talks about the unforgivable sin. That is the flaw with your argument.The unforgivable sin is denying Christ after you have a perfect witness of him and have had him revealed to you as God's Son and your rightful Lord.If you deny Christ after you know he is God's Son and your Savior, you possess the mindset of the Jewish leaders who called for and set in motion Christ's crucifixion. It is as if you "assent unto Christ's death" and it is Christ's blood that is referred to when it says that one who sheds "innocent blood" cannot be forgiven.Nice try though. Your doctrinal knowledge about that was just a little lacking, but then again, in the Church that's a common misunderstanding. Note: I'm not trying to be snide, though I'm aware it might "sound" that way without being face-to-face to read my intent....the practice of capital punishment necessarily leads to the commission of unforgivable sins...Wrong. See above....the death penalty must not be supported by those who believe the LDS of unforgivable sin, as all orthodox Mormons should.There's your problem, bro. You have the orthodox LDS position completely wrong. The unforgivable sin is not murdering your fellow man. It is denying Christ after he has been revealed to you in perfection.Christ Himself forgave the Roman soldiers who shed His blood.But not Judas or the Jewish leaders who knew who Christ was and assented to his death anyway. The Romans weren't accountable because they lacked the light and knowledge necessary to make them culpable of the crime Judas committed with his perfect knowledge of Christ's divine identity.Therefore, the shedding of innocent blood can be forgiven, as per scripture. Murder can be forgiven, yes.Denying Christ after you have a perfect spiritual witness of his divine reality, no. This is what D&C 132 means by the phrase "shedding innocent blood" and "assenting unto Christ's death."I've not been commanded!Context is everything, VOL. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies were repenting for a life spent killing their Nephite brethren without cause beyond lust for power and riches.There is in no way a useful parallel between a murderous people repenting of their wicked ways, and a society of laws executing those who break those laws.The death penalty is society's way of affirming the value of human life.D&C 98 explains that God raised up the Founders of the USA and inspired the Constitution. The Founders largely based their political science and philosophy on Cicero's "Natural Law," to wit:You may exercise any of your God-given rights as long as you do not remove the God-given rights of others.Since God gave us the right to live, if we take away someone else's right through pre-meditated and wicked murder, we thereby forfeit our own right to live.Lastly, there's this little morsel from the Doctrine and Covenants (though I know the Church's current civil policy is neutrality):We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. (D&C 134:2)And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. (D&C 42:19)For those with eyes to see...
Recommended Posts