Does Utah Prefer "Eye for an Eye" Justice?

[Scott Lloyd]

To my experience, being pro-death penalty isn't a Utah thing. It is a conservative thing. As such, it will be seen as a Mormon thing to most non-LDS Utahans.

Utahns, both LDS and non-LDS, spell Utahns without the extraneous syllable and letter "a".

[AddamS]

Utahns, both LDS and non-LDS, spell Utahns without the extraneous syllable and letter "a".

Obviously I'm not a Utahn

[blueadept]

To my experience, being pro-death penalty isn't a Utah thing. It is a conservative thing. As such, it will be seen as a Mormon thing to most non-LDS Utahans.

That's sort of like saying that Utah has always voted Republican which isn't the case. All the LDS that I'm aware of has been pro-gun and pro-death penalty and I believe history reflects that starting with having their own militia.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's sort of like saying that Utah has always voted Republican which isn't the case. All the LDS that I'm aware of has been pro-gun and pro-death penalty and I believe history reflects that starting with having their own militia.

I think that's quite a stretch.

For one thing, town militias, under state charter and with the governor as commander-in-chief, were common in the 19th Century, when the Church was organized and grew. They were the counterpart to today's National Guard. In Illinois, when the Mormons were living in Nauvoo, cities in the surrounding area, including those with largely anti-Mormon populations, also had militias. These would include Carthage and Warsaw, whose militias figured prominently in the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Earlier in Missouri, Joseph Smith almost was illegally executed by order of an officer in the state militia.

So having militias in the 19th Century was not just a Mormon thing.

And offhand, I can't think of anything about Mormon doctrine or culture that would program Latter-day Saints to be pro-gun and pro-death penalty because of some sort of wistful nostalgia about the Nauvoo Legion. The notion seems comical.

[LeSellers]

ll the LDS that I'm aware of has been pro-gun and pro-death penalty and I believe history reflects that starting with having their own militia.

This is the most startling display of historical ignorance I have seen in many a long age.

All states and cities in USmerica had their own militia before the XX. It was a requirement. All men between the ages of ~18 and ~55 were members unless they were not "able-bodied". The requirement was part of being a citizen.

They had mandatory drills, typically weekly, and their arms were provided by the state. Skill in the use of firearms was by training, and the training was rigorous. Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers were elected by the units (which explains how Joseph was the commander of the Nauvoo Legion, it was not an office he gave himself).

To object to the Utah militia would be very odd to anyone of the period and might be seen as sedition or extraordinary na

[blueadept]

Scott, Lehi,

I concede your point and agree humbly

[AddamS]

That's sort of like saying that Utah has always voted Republican which isn't the case. All the LDS that I'm aware of has been pro-gun and pro-death penalty and I believe history reflects that starting with having their own militia.

I never implied that the state was affiliated with any particular party. I pointed out that conservatives tend to be pro-death penalty and that non-LDS Utahns tend to blame/credit any conservative idealism on/to The LDS church.

[LeSellers]

I concede your point and agree humbly

Always glad to clear up misunderstandings.

Lehi

[USU78]

Then I will neutralize your "personal observations" by saying I (born into the Church with roots and current residence in Utah's Salt Lake County) have yet to meet a faithful Latter-day Saint (and I deal with many, day in and day out) who holds to any contemporary version of "blood atonement" as it is exploited by critics of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Which, yet again, confirms that "as exploited" it is a libel.

[BCSpace]

Then let God carry out the execution.

That's not what God has commanded. Genesis 9:6

[frankenstein]

JST Gen 9:

10 But, the blood of all flesh which I have given you for meat, shall be shed upon the ground, which taketh life thereof, and the blood ye shall not eat.

11 And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.

12 And whoso sheddeth man

[saemo]

Lightbearer;

That just gives them publicity. I say let them rot in jail forgotten, and unknown to any but by God.

Matthew 25

34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' 40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' 44 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' 45 He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

[ERayR]

What happened to turn the other cheek?

It's OK until you run out of cheeks.

[ERayR]

Jeez, I said that this is from my personal observations and is not part of some controlled, scientific study. This observation is from my years growing up in the church and hearing the topic discussed among ward members, either as a side note or tangent in elders quorum meetings, or in general conversation among the mormons that I knew.

I never said that this was something that the church holds as doctrine....do I need to provide some type of references for my own conversation and observations?

That is strange. I have been attending Priesthood meetings for over 50 years now and I can't ever remember blood attonement being discussed. However, I may have missed that discussion one Sunday onopening day of hunting season.

[ERayR]

Wow, well I guess you were right by my side when I had these conversations. Is there any room on this forum to discuss the conversational, observational, personal experiences that we have in church, or does everything have to be referenced to some doctrinal text? I specifically said in my previous texts that my thoughts on this subject were from my own observations, and do not reflect LDS doctrine.

And yes, I have personally heard the topic of capital punishment discussed in relation to class lessons regarding the teachings of Brigham Young, specifically blood atonement. No, this was not part of the church-approved manual, but rather speculation and ideas thrown around by members discussing this topic in class, whether it was gospel doctrine or elders quorum. I am sorry if the church classes that you attend stick solely to the church-approved manual and do not leave any room for personal conjecture, speculation, etc. Those sound like very dry, boring classes.

I would call BS if you say that you have never heard any speculative statements in all your years in the LDS church regarding any relationship between blood atonement and capital punishment. But then I am not by your side when you have conversations, so I couldn't tell you what it is that you heard, so I would never claim that it must be BS. To bad the rest of us are not extended this same courtesy.

I could have been there or maybe not, but I have been to numerous priesthood meetings in several states so who knows. As I said before I have never heard capital punishment discussed in relation to blood atonement. I too have an elevated BS reading on my meter.

[Walden]

I could have been there or maybe not, but I have been to numerous priesthood meetings in several states so who knows. As I said before I have never heard capital punishment discussed in relation to blood atonement. I too have an elevated BS reading on my meter.

You mean to tell me that the meetings that you've attended in church all these years have never digressed from the the church-approved lesson to explore a tangent of personal interpretation or belief? I never said that this was the church's stance or that it was taught as a LDS lesson. All I said was that there were occasions when discussion on this topic, in elders quorum or gospel doctrine classes, included the views that I related.

If you cannot possibly imagine that discussions in class sometimes stray from the official church lesson of the week, and you have never experienced such a time when personal interpretation and ideas were injected into the overall discussion, then no wonder that you cannot possibly comprehend how Mormonism could ever be anything than perfect.

The more I read the reactions to my initial response on this subject, the more I realize what a progressive stake I must have attended for 25 years...they actually allowed for personal discussion that sometimes veered from the manual.

If you really are stating that you have never, ever heard or pondered the idea that blood atonement could be related to capital punishment, then I too can say that my BS detector is pinging loudly.

[LDSToronto]

I could have been there or maybe not, but I have been to numerous priesthood meetings in several states so who knows. As I said before I have never heard capital punishment discussed in relation to blood atonement. I too have an elevated BS reading on my meter.

Every few years the topic of the death penalty comes up in Sunday School, and occasionally in high priests quorum, and usually someone brings up the blood atonement thing. So I've heard it mentioned. However, I'll probably be overly stereotypical here and say that it's usually an elderly member of the so-called 'old guard', and usually there isn't much discussion other than 'thanks Brother So-and-so'. I have been in wards were there is more of a liberal bend, so this may be a matter of local cultural beliefs.

For the record, I completely disagree with capital punishment as it is exercised today, by government administration. Taking a life is serious business and, in my opinion, lies squarely in the realm of deity. Unless judges are capable of receiving revelation concerning the condemned's fate, I'd suggest the state has no right issuing a penalty of death for any crime.

H.

[maklelan]

You mean to tell me that the meetings that you've attended in church all these years have never digressed from the the church-approved lesson to explore a tangent of personal interpretation or belief?

I don't believe that's what he said. What he said was that he never heard blood atonement connected to capital punishment.

A point that seems to have escaped you is that what others have stated is that it is specifically death by firing squad that seems to overlap with the blood atonement ideology, not capital punishment in general. Lethal injection, the electric chair, or hanging have nothing to do with blood atonement. Either you attended gospel doctrine and priesthood classes where this point somehow also went over everyone else's head, or you are remembering/reporting incorrectly.

I never said that this was the church's stance or that it was taught as a LDS lesson. All I said was that there were occasions when discussion on this topic, in elders quorum or gospel doctrine classes, included the views that I related.

If you cannot possibly imagine that discussions in class sometimes stray from the official church lesson of the week, and you have never experienced such a time when personal interpretation and ideas were injected into the overall discussion, then no wonder that you cannot possibly comprehend how Mormonism could ever be anything than perfect.

Now you're veering even further from what he actually said in an effort to salvage a point. You shared your personal observations, he shared his. Why is his suddenly about the lesson manual?

The more I read the reactions to my initial response on this subject, the more I realize what a progressive stake I must have attended for 25 years...they actually allowed for personal discussion that sometimes veered from the manual.

Again, I see no mention of the manual in his comments, but you seem incredibly concerned about defending this conjured up point.

If you really are stating that you have never, ever heard or pondered the idea that blood atonement could be related to capital punishment, then I too can say that my BS detector is pinging loudly.

I have never heard it related to capital punishment, and I've had plenty of elder's quorum experiences in multiple states and countries. Are you now going to accuse me of following the GD lesson manual too Pharisaically?

[Ariarates]

I have a few observations regarding this thread:

1. I notice that "Utah" is often equated with "the Mormons" but I was under the impression that the LDS/non-LDS ratio in Utah has been on the decline for decades. How accurate is it these days to extrapolate LDS practices from Utah practices?

2. Even though I live in Europe and most European nations have abandoned the death penalty, I too was taught by my parents that murderers in Utah are shot because of the whole blood spilling thing. If a murderer was truly repentent, the spilling of his blood would keep him from Outer Darkness. I don't know where my parents got this but I dare say blood atonement had little to do with it; that kind of thing was unknown to us before the internet.

3. I did a quick search in my gospel library software and found this footnote in the History of the Church:

B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.99, p.129:

41. Not, however,--as I have already urged in preceding pages--by the church; certainly not by individuals taking it upon themselves to be the ministers of God's vengeance; for then they themselves would become murderers. "To me belongeth vengeance and recompense, saith the Lord (Deut., xxxii: 35). "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." saith the Lord (Rom., xii) ; and therefore must this matter of retribution for sin be left with God and those agencies that he shall ordain to encompass it. These, in part, are the secular governments in whose polities capital punishments are provided for some of the more heinous crimes against society and government, such as murder in the first degree, etc. Therefore the church is commanded to give up those who kill to be dealt with according to the law of the land. And Latter-day Saints believe that where secular government prescribes capital punishment it is better that such form of execution be adopted as will shed the blood of the criminal; hence in Utah, when the Latter-day Saints, in their capacity as citizens of the state have made the laws, condemned criminals, subject to capital punishment, are permitted to choose their mode of execution either by being hung or shot, the latter mode, of course, resulting in the shedding of their blood, thus meeting the requirements of the law of God as well as the law of the state. It is quite erroneously supposed that this idea had its origin among Latter-day Saints with Brigham Young. That, however, is not the case. In the minutes of the Nauvoo city council for March 4th, 1843, occurs the following statement by Joseph Smith: "In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, [this does not mean that he would do so personally; see context of speech], or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so." (History of the Church, Period I, vol. v, p. 296).

4. I was pretty disgusted by some of the statements in this thread. It turns out they all come from one poster. I am appalled that this person would call him/herself a Christian, but to each his own, I guess:

I think that the death penalty should be enforced fully for capitol crimes (murder, etc...) and also that lethal injection should be abolished. Why make the death penalty seem too "humane"? It should be seen as just as brutal as it is! It is taking a life, I for one would not like to make it too "comfortable" for the public to enforce.

Actually the electric chair is my favorite... in Florida we used to refer to it as "Old Sparky" until the state legislature wimped out and replaced it with lethal injection. But I find the lethal injection method more demeaning, sort of like putting an "animal to sleep" and I think it is mostly insulting to the animals.

5. I checked the term "death penalty" in my non-English Topical Guide. It contains 7 references that are exclusively pro-capital punishment, so it's pretty clear in which direction the Correlation Committe leans.

6. This is a list of countries who have executed people in 2009 (in descending order of frequency). What great company to be in!

China

Iran

Iraq

Saudi Arabia

United States

Yemen

Sudan

Vietnam

Syria

Japan

Egypt

Libya

Bangladesh

Thailand

Singapore

Botswana

Malaysia

North Korea

[USU78]

5. I checked the term "death penalty" in my non-English Topical Guide. It contains 7 references that are exclusively pro-capital punishment, so it's pretty clear in which direction the Correlation Committe leans.

Possible reason for this:

DEATH ROW SYNDROME/DEATH ROW PHENOMENON

Psychologists and lawyers in the United States and elsewhere have argued that protracted periods in the confines of death row can make inmates suicidal, delusional and insane. Some have referred to the living conditions on death row

[rockslider]

Ariarates,

Thanks for that BHR quote.

[Nathair/|\]

Lightbearer;

That just gives them publicity. I say let them rot in jail forgotten, and unknown to any but by God.

I was a corrections officer for 3.75 years. The only truly bad part about being there is the company and if you are that type of person, you would be more comfortable with them anyway.

[Vance]

4. I was pretty disgusted by some of the statements in this thread. It turns out they all come from one poster. I am appalled that this person would call him/herself a Christian, but to each his own, I guess:

I think that the death penalty should be enforced fully for capitol crimes (murder, etc...) and also that lethal injection should be abolished. Why make the death penalty seem too "humane"? It should be seen as just as brutal as it is! It is taking a life, I for one would not like to make it too "comfortable" for the public to enforce.

Actually the electric chair is my favorite... in Florida we used to refer to it as "Old Sparky" until the state legislature wimped out and replaced it with lethal injection. But I find the lethal injection method more demeaning, sort of like putting an "animal to sleep" and I think it is mostly insulting to the animals.

And Jesus said,(Matt 7:12) Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Or (Luke 6:31) And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Seems rather "Christian like" to provide that a murderer be put to death in the same manner in which he murdered.

[Ariarates]

And Jesus said,(Matt 7:12) Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Or (Luke 6:31) And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Seems rather "Christian like" to provide that a murderer be put to death in the same manner in which he murdered.

Sure, you can use Bible quotes to support any point of view you want.

Do you think it is normal for people to have a favourite execution method (the electrical chair no less) or to prefer executions to be brutal rather than humane? And to express such repulsive opinions on a message board devoted to apologetics for the Church of Jesus Christ? If it is, I'm outta here faster than you can say 9/11 (be it 1857 or 2001).

[selek]

Sure, you can use Bible quotes to support any point of view you want.

Do you think it is normal for people to have a favourite execution method (the electrical chair no less) or to prefer executions to be brutal rather than humane? And to express such repulsive opinions on a message board devoted to apologetics for the Church of Jesus Christ? If it is, I'm outta here faster than you can say 9/11 (be it 1857 or 2001).

Spare us the false piety and feigned outrage, Singing Rat.

Pious and reasoning people have supported capital punishment for most of recorded history.

Society has rules- and those who violate those rules can face- justly- some very harsh consequences.

Many of the methods used strike us as barbaric today, but that's only because of changing standards and the dandification of a once robust society.

Your great-grandfathers looked at hanging and firing squads as perfectly acceptable, but considered stoning to be barbaric. (Yes, "getting stoned" means something different to generations outside your own Cheech and Chong or Beavis and Butt-head crowd).

Being drawn and quartered, or even crucified were horrific punishments (and effective deterrents). We find them repugnant and horrific today- but they were "run of the mill" in their day.

If you think electrocution is that uniquely gruesome, you've got no concept whatever of history.

Examine for a moment (from the comfort of your plush arm chair, chilled bourbon in one hand, Wii remote in the other) the traditional punishments meted out to pirates, insurrectionists, and traitors during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.

Look for a moment at how rapists, murderers, and horse-theives were generally treated during the 19th and early 20th century.

Other than exemplifying what I refer to as the "lace panty" crowd, your "outrage" adds nothing to the conversation, and does nothing to undermine the points made.

And for the record...you know where the door is. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

You came to US, remember?