Why LDS doctrine requires opposition to the death penalty

[Francine]

The point of Alma 34:33 is not that you can't repent in spirit prison, for D&C 138 explicitly says that many in spirit prison will repent and be saved.

Thank you. I was given a Book of Mormon by the missionary girls but not a D&C.

[Francine]

That has nothing to do with Israel's civil laws under Moses. Hosea 6:6 is talking about the religious obligations of Israel, specifically burnt offerings. This verse does not address the death penalty or its propriety in God's sight. I'm confused why you used Hosea 6:6?

Because I view the requirement of a murderer atoning for his sin by the shedding of his own blood to be the equivalent of a human sacrifice, much like the way Isaac was to be offered to God as a burnt offering. Blood for blood, life for life. Isaac was an anti-type of Christ, and after Christ was offered up, I believe the requirement to shed a murderer's blood for atonement was abrogated.

[CrimsonKairos]

Oh, well that's our difference.

I'm not saying a murderer should be executed to atone for what he did.

I'm saying a murderer who deprives someone else of the right to live, should have his right to live taken away as well, not for any religious reason, but to dissuade future murderers from taking that which is most precious in God's sight: human life.

[prisonchaplain]

Because I view the requirement of a murderer atoning for his sin by the shedding of his own blood to be the equivalent of a human sacrifice, much like the way Isaac was to be offered to God as a burnt offering. Blood for blood, life for life. Isaac was an anti-type of Christ, and after Christ was offered up, I believe the requirement to shed a murderer's blood for atonement was abrogated.

Are you really Taoist?

[pam]

Oh, well that's our difference.

I'm not saying a murderer should be executed to atone for what he did.

I'm saying a murderer who deprives someone else of the right to live, should have his right to live taken away as well, not for any religious reason, but to dissuade future murderers from taking that which is most precious in God's sight: human life.

I totally agree with what you said.

[Francine]

I'm saying a murderer who deprives someone else of the right to live, should have his right to live taken away as well, not for any religious reason, but to dissuade future murderers from taking that which is most precious in God's sight: human life.

If life is what is most precious in God's sight, then even the life of a murderer is precious in God's sight. A penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole is a sufficient deterrent, and even if it is slightly less of a deterrent, it is not so much less a deterrent that it justifies taking a second life. Plus there is the possibility that we execute an innocent man.

[CrimsonKairos]

Its a chance I'm willing to take.

To let a murderer live cheapens the value of their victim's life...its like saying the murderer's life is worth more than the innocent victim's life.

Murderers have been dealt with too softly for too long.

[Francine]

To let a murderer live cheapens the value of their victim's life...its like saying the murderer's life is worth more than the innocent victim's life.

A murderer's life is worth just as much as the victim's life. We all deserve death for our sins. That's precisely why God came in the flesh to die as propitation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

[CrimsonKairos]

A murderer's life is worth just as much as the victim's life.

I disagree. Now their souls may be of equal value in God's sight, but a murderer forfeits their right to live when they take away someone else's life.

We all deserve death for our sins.

Spiritual death, yes. But resurrection is a free gift since we didn't cause the Fall.

I think you all are looking at this differently than I am in that this life is not "the end." They can repent in spirit prison (though they can never receive any glory greater than the Telestial Kingdom, see D&C 76).

A murderer has demonstrated that they cannot peacefully coexist in society. Hence, they must be expelled from society.

Its essentially the same thing as if you have a pervert go to a grade school and run through the halls nude and making obscene gestures in front of the kids. Such behavior shows a flagrant contempt for decency and propriety.

Would anyone object to the perpetrator being forcibly removed and kept from ever entering that school again? Or would we argue, "Well yeah he did a bad thing but he should be able to be in the school too. We'll just keep him locked in a separate room. Oh, and the students' parents will have to pay for his clothing and food and heating and medical care. Oh, and we'll let him live in that room until he dies, and the parents must pay for his living costs for as long as he lives. Yeah, that'll show him."

That's precisely why God came in the flesh to die as propitation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

It isn't society's job to forgive sins. In fact, we haven't the power or authority to forgive sins. All we can do is enact laws which will preserve life and punish those who take it wantonly and violently.

Let me ask you something: If you were married, and a psychopath tortured and murdered and dismembered your spouse and children, you would honestly want such a person to remain in this world after they have demonstrated such evil that God will never allow them to enter any kingdom but the lowest degree of glory?

What purpose would it serve to keep them here, while innocent and honest people have to pay for their food and clothes and shelter through our taxes. Why reward an evil act? That's all "life without parole" is for murderers: a reward, a slap on the wrist.

Maybe you all enjoy subsidizing a murderer's cost of living, but I'd rather take the tax money that would go to pay for the murderer's living costs, and give that money instead to the family of the victim.

To do anything else is backwards and ridiculous.

[Francine]

If you were married, and a psychopath tortured and murdered and dismembered your spouse and children, you would honestly want such a person to remain in this world after they have demonstrated such evil that God will never allow them to enter any kingdom but the lowest degree of glory?

Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

[Francine]

I disagree. Now their souls may be of equal value in God's sight, but a murderer forfeits their right to live when they take away someone else's life.

Cain took away Abel's life, but God showed mercy to him, and did not declare Cain's life forfeit. The law that requires eye for eye, life for life, stripe for stripe has been nailed to the cross. The law from Sinai has been abrograted in favor of a New Covenant. The Love of Law has been replaced by the Law of Love.

Ephesians 2:14-16 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

[the_jason]

There needs to be a seperation between sinner and sin. God loves all of His children equally. They all have great worth in his eyes. God despises sin, however, and they must be repented of. The atonement of Christ does not take away our personal responsibility to make amends for our sins. The atonement only has effect on our sins if we first have done all that we can to correct them. A murderer must be dealt with justly and pay for his sins before the atonement can have an effect on him.

[CrimsonKairos]

I agree.

True repentance requires reparation, a repairing of the breach your sin has caused, etc.

If you steal, you return what you stole or repay the value of it.

If you lie, you apologize to the person you lied to or about and ask forgiveness.

Unfortunately, murderers cannot restore the life they take. The closest thing they can do is to give up their own life in an insufficient but necessary attempt at reparation.

The scriptures you quote, Francine, deal in generalities. Let's get specific, yes? I'm sure you are aware of scriptures like these:

1 Now it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, from this time forward, king Mosiah having gone the way of all the earth...nevertheless he had established laws, and they were acknowledged by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the laws which he had made.

18 And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death. (Alma 1:1, 18; emphasis mine)

I guess King Mosiah was mistaken when he established the law which required the execution of murderers. What did King Mosiah know, anyway? Now did the people support capital punishment? Surely, as we see from going back to verses 13-14, where Nehor is condemned by Alma for killing Gideon:

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. (Alma 1:13-14; emphasis mine)

But did they actually execute Nehor the murderer? Yep.

15 And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death. (Alma 1:15; emphasis mine)

I suppose you would charge King Mosiah and Alma with being wicked and unjust for executing a murderer. I also suppose you would disagree with Jacob who taught:

Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die. (2 Ne. 9:35; emphasis mine)

Hmmm, if you follow the footnote "c" by the word "die" at the end, it points to the Topical Guide entry under "Capital Punishment." It also corresponds to D&C 42:19 which reads:

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. (emphasis mine)

Again, the footnote for "die" points to the Topical Guide entry under "Capital Punishment." Hmmm.

I suppose you think that Joseph Smith was off his rocker when he claimed the Lord revealed to him the law of capital punishment in the case of murder. After all, surely Joseph Smith knew that such things had been nailed to the cross and done away with.

Then there's examples like this:

7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief...

10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death...yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. (Alma 30:7, 10; emphasis mine)

In the end, Francine, I guess this scripture expresses my thoughts on the matter the most succinctly:

Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder? (Alma 42:19)

You can take what you will from the scriptures, but this much is clear:

Even if you don't believe capital punishment must be the law, it is clear that righteous servants of God established laws requiring capital punishment in the case of murderers. And I think their societies were the better for it.

[Francine]

The atonement of Christ does not take away our personal responsibility to make amends for our sins. The atonement only has effect on our sins if we first have done all that we can to correct them. A murderer must be dealt with justly and pay for his sins before the atonement can have an effect on him.

I fail to see how a second death makes amends for the first, unless that death is viewed as blood atonement. A murderer could much better make amends by working for the rest of his life, with the fruit of his labor going solely to support himself (that he not be a burden on society) and providing restitution to the family.

[Francine]

Unfortunately, murderers cannot restore the life they take. The closest thing they can do is to give up their own life in an insufficient but necessary attempt at reparation.

By dying in the murderer Barabbas’ stead, Jesus teaches us that even people who do us evil have a claim on our love.

[CrimsonKairos]

I hardly think its a useful parallel. Jesus was perfect and was dying not just in Barabbas' stead, but symbolically for all of us. Jesus never said, "Barabbas, you are forgiven."

I don't think we can compare our civil laws with the celestial laws that dictated the death of the only sinless Child of God our Father.

[the_jason]

I fail to see how a second death makes amends for the first, unless that death is viewed as blood atonement. A murderer could much better make amends by working for the rest of his life, with the fruit of his labor going solely to support himself (that he not be a burden on society) and providing restitution to the family.

That would never work, and would end up costing more than just frying them in the chair. Plus, if I'm part of the family they offended then I don't want them anywhere near me or my family. I'd rather they go away. I'm a believer in 'an eye for an eye.'

[Argentina84]

In the midst of all this detailed discussion, there remains the perception that most LDs would likely favor the death penalty. The realty might be different, but that's the perception. Thoughts?

I found this thread because I was asked to write a composition about Death Penalty at school. And I only want to say that I am LDS and I am AGAINST Death Penalty.

I know that the shedding of innocent blood is one of the unforgivable sins, but I don't believe that ordinary men should have the power to decide over someone else's life without the guide (explicit commandment) of God.

I also believe that, since it's always best to repent from our sins as soon as possible and while on this earthly life, criminals should be kept alive to give them the chance to repent and save their souls to the extent possible. They should be kept in prison, of course, but alive. And yes, they cannot make restitution for the lives they've taken, but they can admit their sins, ask for forgiveness and abandon their sins. If we followed the logic of restitution ONLY, then most of us would be in trouble. There are many other sins we cannot make restitution for and that doesn't mean we should pay for them with our blood.

I was surprised to find so much disagreement on the subject, and I guess that as members of the church we are free to choose sides as we are left free to choose our political affiliations. I am against. I leave it to God to jugde.

However, this is MY opinion. I do not expect anyone else to adhere to it nor find its faults. I just wanted to make my stand clear. There are not direct proclamations issued by the Church. I will follow the prophet if the situation changes.

[mnn727]

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

Do you think its also barbaric to put a dangerous dog down? one that has been known to maim and/or kill?

If not, then whats the difference? A murderer (which is the only crime punishable by death by civilian law in the U.S.) has lost their right to live. Why should I have to support them in jail for the rest of their natural lives?

[Justice]

3. Therefore, the death penalty will inevitably result in the commission of unforgivable sins.

Can anyone find a flaw in the argument above?

I cannot.

Here is the flaw. When a person is sentenced to death by a jury of his peers they were given a fair trial. Right, wrong, or otherwise, this is not the same thing as taking the law into your own hands and killing someone who may have been innocent.

By virtue of being human we make mistakes. If the trial was fair, and the jury made the best decision they could with the evidence presented, then it was a mistake, not a unpardonable sin.

Now, if people lied, intentionally withheld important information, or jury tampered, then it's a different animal.

[Vort]

However, this is MY opinion. I do not expect anyone else to adhere to it nor find its faults.

So you expect to announce your opinion on a discussion list but not have any discussion about it?

Okay...

[estradling75]

This thread is over three years old...

The OP and another who have been quoted since it was restarted have not been on in years..

If you want to talk about the Death Penalty please start a fresh thread.

Thread closed