Relationship with Heavenly Parents

[Olmec Donald]

On the topic of capital punishment for murderers, I'd like to toss out an idea. I do not expect anyone to agree with it. I'm not even sure that I do, at least not consistently. But I want to put it out there.

(@katherine the greatI would feel the same way you would if that was my daughter. And @MacGyver, you may be right that sending a murderer to the Spirit World is doing him a service.)

Okay, here goes: 

God is love (First John chapter 4, verses 8 and 16). Exactly what all that means I do not claim to fully understand, but THAT'S what was taught by “the disciple Jesus loved.”

We are created in the image of God. We are either co-eternal with God (King Follet Discourse) or co-equal with God (original wording of the King Follet Discourse). The point is, we are made of the same stuff God is.

Therefore WE are also LOVE. The least among us is also love. And the worst among us is also love.

I am not wise enough to say what misperceptions could cause one of us to think that committing monstrous acts would make them happy. Fortunately it is not my job to figure that out. My job is to “forgive all men” (D&C 64:10). And to protect the innocent at the same time.

Therefore I place no limitations on the healing power of the Atonement of Christ. None whatsoever.

I do not know what the right course of action is in a specific case. As I said, MacGyver may be right. What I propose is a shift in perception about who and what the least among us, and the worse among us, really are.

We are all made of the same stuff God is.  We are all Love.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[katherine the great]

24 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Therefore I place no limitations on the healing power of the Atonement of Christ. None whatsoever.

I don’t either. I don’t understand why people want to create God in man’s image and limit His power. I’m okay with life in prison for most murderers. But I am a flawed human being and still also okay with capital punishment for especially heinous crimes-especially when they involve children. God made me a mother and I think He understands my sentiments. Every time I hear of a person hurting a child I want to take a baseball bat to their head now and forgive them later. 

[Olmec Donald]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

 Every time I hear of a person hurting a child I want to take a baseball bat to their head now and forgive them later. 

That is so well said!!  

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Why do you consider capital punishment of a murderer to be murder? 

Because it is state sponsored killing which I simply viewed as murder though one can argue, as you do, that it is like self defense or war time so an exception is made.

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

The definition of murder is the "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." 

 

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

If capital punishment is allowed by law, especially in the case of heinous crime, how is that murder? It doesn't fit the definition.

I guess based on that definition capital punishment is not murder.

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Why do you consider this to be much different than capital punishment? In many cases killing in self defense or war time killing is intentional. 

I think the differences are fairly obvious.

 

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I agree that one doesn't need to believe in God or participate in one of the major world religions to find purpose in life. But I do wonder what purpose a former believer in Mormonism or Christianity, who is now agnostic, finds in life.

 

Just because I believed something at one point and no longer do does not mean I cannot find purpose in life.  

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

 

 

How does your view on the purpose of life make capital punishment barbaric?

I don't know that it does or deosn't.

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

What do you think happens when you die? I think this belief is connected to your belief that capital punishment is barbaric and completely unacceptable, even in the case of a heinous murderer. 

I already said I do not know what happens nor do I have any particular belief one way or the other about what happens at death. I think likely we are just dead and no longer exist but I do not know and am hopeful that such is not the case.

 

 

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I understand why a Mormon/Christian would be opposed to capital punishment on the grounds that this might deny the murderer the chance to repent and avoid hell fire. But I don't understand why an agnostic person would find capital punishment to be unacceptable in all cases.

If it all ends at the end of this life then I would think that is a compelling reason not to kill the murderer.

 

 

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

 

You don't believe in hell do you?

Nope I do not.

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

 

You don't seem to have any clear belief of what happens after you die and if there is any type of existence after this life, so why is capital punishment such a big no no for you?

i think I have explained this repeatedly.

17 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Doesn't life in prison without the possibility of parole (or any other punishment for a crime for that matter) harm the person? If you believe we shouldn't harm anyone, why is a lifetime prison sentence okay, but the death penalty isn't?

I said to Nehor in some cases death may be preferable to life in prison.  I would think it would depend on the circumstances of the imprisonment.

[MacGyver]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Just because I believed something at one point and no longer do does not mean I cannot find purpose in life.  

I never said that you can no longer find purpose in life now that you have rejected Mormonism and Christianity. I'm genuinely curious to know what purpose you now find in life and what you base that purpose on?

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think likely we are just dead and no longer exist

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If it all ends at the end of this life then I would think that is a compelling reason not to kill the murderer.

Why? If it all ends at the end of this life and we just cease to exist, why does it matter if we put a murderer to death or lock them up for the rest of their lives? Why does anything we do matter if we just cease to exist when we die and that's it? 

You said you have hope that we don't just cease to exist when we die. What do you hope happens, then? Reincarnation, something similar to heaven, or what?

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

i think I have explained this repeatedly.

You have tried to explain why you consider capital punishment to be barbaric, but I still don' understand. You're reasons seem very superficial to me. Maybe you don't have a good reason for why you believe it's barbaric other than that's what you believe. And I suppose that's fine. I'm probably in the same boat with some of my beliefs, too.

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

18 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Doesn't life in prison without the possibility of parole (or any other punishment for a crime for that matter) harm the person? If you believe we shouldn't harm anyone, why is a lifetime prison sentence okay, but the death penalty isn't?

I said to Nehor in some cases death may be preferable to life in prison.  I would think it would depend on the circumstances of the imprisonment.

This answer doesn't make sense to me. If your opposition to capital punishment is that it harms people, why is life in prison or any other form of punishment that clearly harms the person being punished acceptable to you? 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Being put to death is the most just thing to do. While it won't help the victim, other than satisfying the demands of justice, it does partially atone for the terrible sin the murderer committed before God.

This is what Amulek was talking about when he said:

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered;

Alma 34

So you believe in blood atonement, like Brigham Young did?

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you believe in blood atonement, like Brigham Young did?

All that matters is what God says on the matter.
You know, assuming you believe that God ever speaks.

D&C 42:18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

You have tried to explain why you consider capital punishment to be barbaric, but I still don' understand. You're reasons seem very superficial to me. Maybe you don't have a good reason for why you believe it's barbaric other than that's what you believe. And I suppose that's fine. I'm probably in the same boat with some of my beliefs, too.

This answer doesn't make sense to me. If your opposition to capital punishment is that it harms people, why is life in prison or any other form of punishment that clearly harms the person being punished acceptable to you? 

What are some things you are demonstrably more passionate about than executing people?

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, ksfisher said:

One thing life in prison does is protects society from the criminal without taking life.

Life in prison allows the possibility of repentance as well.

Let me chime in here.

Yes, life in prison does protect society without taking life. And in a sense, forcing the murderer to give up a full life and be confined, is a form of execution.

As for the possibility of repentance, yes, it does exist. I remember the film "The Shawshank Redemption" where one man was convicted of murdering his wife, was found guilty, but was probably innocent. He was sentenced to life in prison, but later escaped. Another man, his close friend, actually murdered someone, and far along in his sentence he was granted parole because the parole board found that he had repented.

In the first case, if the man had been executed, the state would have killed an innocent man. In the second, if he had been executed, his repentance would never have occurred. 

But then we have people like Ted Bundy. If ever the death penalty was justified...

I used to be all in favor of the death penalty, but the number of people wrong convicted of murder has made me modify that stance greatly. So, I'm generally opposed to it, but in some very egregious cases, the option should be available. In my humble opinion.

[Stargazer]

For those arguing in favor of capital punishment because the scriptures advocate it, let me gently remind you that the Church, or any church, is not the civil power in most countries. Where the scripture says that a murderer should be killed, I am pretty certain that this would be the way it would be handled if church and state were not separate, but one and the same. So, in the Millennium, if someone murders then the state power will take the murderers life -- because the scriptures require it, and because the church is the state. Now, I'd be happy to live under a theocracy if we were in the Millennium. But we're not, so no thanks. How many of you advocating scriptural punishments want to live under Sharia Law? I don't see any hands raised.

But where government is entirely secular, then the matter of crime and punishment is not subject to scripture. Yes, the civil and the religious may agree that murder is wrong and should be punished, but the religious has no authority to demand a particular punishment. On other matters, the civil and the religious no longer agree (e.g. blasphemy and adultery), and the religious fight their own battle entirely separately. And while they may punish violators of religious law, their punishment is restricted to the status of membership, as laid out in D&C 134:10

10. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that capital punishment is a matter for the secular government, and the Church itself is neutral on the question.

In summary, what I'm saying is that just because there are scriptures which demand the life of a murderer, does not mean that the scriptures can or should be followed in our current state of governance. Because if they should be followed in our current state of governance, then consistency would argue that there are plenty of other punishments that must be doled out for crimes set forth in scripture, punishments that I'm not so sure you'd be willing to contemplate. 

But I'd still be quite willing to pull the trigger, flip the switch, or toggle the trapdoor on Ted Bundy.

 

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I used to be all in favor of the death penalty, but the number of people wrong convicted of murder has made me modify that stance greatly. So, I'm generally opposed to it, but in some very egregious cases, the option should be available. In my humble opinion.

This represents my opinion mostly.
But I think there's a big question as to "wrongly convicted".   I don't think a "murder conviction" alone is enough.

I think the death penalty should be reserved for absolute certainty, serial killers, genocide, confessions, torture etc.

And based on scripture, I don't believe repentance is possible for murder, especially when speaking of innocent blood.  I don't think we do any favors to the souls of those who cannot repent by encouraging them to do so rather than permitting them to pay the price.  I think our compassion will end worse for them if it denies them the path God would have them walk.

Quote

But where government is entirely secular, then the matter of crime and punishment is not subject to scripture. Yes, the civil and the religious may agree that murder is wrong and should be punished, but the religious has no authority to demand a particular punishment. On other matters, the civil and the religious no longer agree (e.g. blasphemy and adultery), and the religious fight their own battle entirely separately. And while they may punish violators of religious law, their punishment is restricted to the status of membership, as laid out in D&C 134:10

10. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

This is speaking for today.  Eventually the civil and the religious will become one.  And that is our goal, not something to be feared.

Edited December 29, 2021 by JLHPROF

[MacGyver]

4 hours ago, Chum said:

What are some things you are demonstrably more passionate about than executing people?

Lots of things. God's command to execute murderers is actually pretty low on my list.

But that doesn't change the fact that he commanded it and that he commanded the death penalty for other sins at various times, too. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by MacGyver

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

But that doesn't change the fact that he commanded it and that he commanded the death penalty for other sons at various times, too. 

Sorry but this is not a fact.  It is a belief and faith that the scripture you rely on is from God but that is not a fact.

[MacGyver]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So you believe in blood atonement, like Brigham Young did?

I believe in the essence of what he taught about "blood atonement." But I also recognize that he utilized a certain degree of hyperbole to drive his point home. 

But your question is really an attempt to change the subject. Please answer my these questions:

How does your belief that we cease to exist when we die an argument against the death penalty for murder?

You said you are against the death penalty because you believe we shouldn't harm others. So how do you justify life in prison, when that harms the person too?

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I believe in the essence of what he taught about "blood atonement." But I also recognize that he utilized a certain degree of hyperbole to drive his point home. 

He likely practiced it. And it seems that blood atonement drives your support for it. So it is on point.

14 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

But your question is really an attempt to change the subject. Please answer my these questions:

How does your belief that we cease to exist when we die an argument against the death penalty for murder?

Well I am not sure I am making that argument.  But again I already said it, if this is all we have the murderer may be ok with their life is prison rather than death.  But others may feel different.

14 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

You said you are against the death penalty because you believe we shouldn't harm others. So how do you justify life in prison, when that harms the person too?

Harm is relative. 

 

Look I think we have exhausted this.  I would say at this point, like others here, I generally oppose the death penalty but I could be persuaded for very heinous murder and crime as long as there is no doubt as to the person's guilt.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Quote

So you believe in blood atonement, like Brigham Young did?

I believe in the essence of what he taught about "blood atonement." But I also recognize that he utilized a certain degree of hyperbole to drive his point home. 

Brigham was fluent in hyperbole.  It was second nature to him.
But I agree - the doctrinal principles that were expressed as "blood atonement" are valid ones.  And when properly understood help us understand the atonement more completely.
WHY was it necessary for Christ to shed his blood and die?  What do scriptures teach us about mortal blood?  How does the blood cry out from the earth?  How are we cleansed by the blood of the Lamb?

Understanding the doctrines that were used in blood atonement explain much of Christ's sacrifice for us.  But people don't like to talk about icky things, even those that redeem them.

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham was fluent in hyperbole.  It was second nature to him.
But I agree - the doctrinal principles that were expressed as "blood atonement" are valid ones.  And when properly understood help us understand the atonement more completely.
WHY was it necessary for Christ to shed his blood and die?  What do scriptures teach us about mortal blood?  How does the blood cry out from the earth?  How are we cleansed by the blood of the Lamb?

Understanding the doctrines that were used in blood atonement explain much of Christ's sacrifice for us.  But people don't like to talk about icky things, even those that redeem them.

I completely agree with everything you said here. The atonement of Jesus Christ is "blood atonement." In D&C 19, when Jesus said that if we don't repent we must suffer even as he did, that's "blood atonement." "Blood atonement" is all over the scriptures. But you're right, people don't want to talk about it because they think it's "icky" or "offensive" or whatever. 

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Harm is relative. 

Well there you go. So you're okay with harming another as a punishment for a crime or in self defense, but aren't okay with capital punishment. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Look I think we have exhausted this.  I would say at this point, like others here, I generally oppose the death penalty but I could be persuaded for very heinous murder and crime as long as there is no doubt as to the person's guilt.

Very well then. I agree that we've exhausted this discussion as it appears that you really aren't able or willing to explain precisely why your belief system makes you so strongly opposed to the death penalty.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Why? If it all ends at the end of this life and we just cease to exist, why does it matter if we put a murderer to death or lock them up for the rest of their lives? Why does anything we do matter if we just cease to exist when we die and that's it? 

The idea that anything impermanent doesn’t matter is morally abhorrent.

”MacGyver, please stop complaining about the fact that I am torturing you for fun. Eventually it will stop so quit whining about it and insisting I should stop now.”

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Well there you go. So you're okay with harming another as a punishment for a crime or in self defense, but aren't okay with capital punishment. 

Very well then. I agree that we've exhausted this discussion as it appears that you really aren't able or willing to explain precisely why your belief system makes you so strongly opposed to the death penalty.

I have totally explained it. Over and over. I can't help you if you have trouble comprehending it.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham was fluent in hyperbole.  It was second nature to him.
But I agree - the doctrinal principles that were expressed as "blood atonement" are valid ones.  And when properly understood help us understand the atonement more completely.
WHY was it necessary for Christ to shed his blood and die?  What do scriptures teach us about mortal blood?  How does the blood cry out from the earth?  How are we cleansed by the blood of the Lamb?

Understanding the doctrines that were used in blood atonement explain much of Christ's sacrifice for us.  But people don't like to talk about icky things, even those that redeem them.

Brigham didn't just practice hyperbole when it came to blood atonement. 

One can argue as well and wonder why an almighty omnipotent God needs to spill blood to forgive sins.  But even if its true there is a difference between Christ's sacrifice and you or I spilling our blood for forgiveness. That is what Jesus did.  So you and I don't have to.  Mormonism is the only Christian sect I am aware of that has the idea that you have to shed your own blood to be forgiven of some sins.

[MacGyver]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 have totally explained it. Over and over. I can't help you if you have trouble comprehending it.

No, you really haven't explained it. Why does your belief system hold that it's okay to harm someone by locking them up for the rest of their lives or even to harm someone by killing them in self defense, but then capital punishment is totally unacceptable, because you believe we shouldn't harm anyone?

Unless you can explain this sufficiently, it basically comes down to you believing that capital punishment is barbaric because you believe it is barbaric. 

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that anything impermanent doesn’t matter is morally abhorrent.

”MacGyver, please stop complaining about the fact that I am torturing you for fun. Eventually it will stop so quit whining about it and insisting I should stop now.”

I didn't say that "anything impermanent doesn't matter," did I?

I asked a question to Teancum, hoping to better understand his current belief system and his view on the purpose in life now that he has rejected Mormonism and Christianity and is agnostic. 

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I didn't say that "anything impermanent doesn't matter," did I?

I asked a question to Teancum, hoping to better understand his current belief system and his view on the purpose in life now that he has rejected Mormonism and Christianity and is agnostic. 

You are suggesting that only belief in God keeps people from doing abhorrent things because it is only rational to do so. It is a very off-putting assumption and is why many atheists and agnostics I know suspect some religious people are generally one missed prayer away from going on a pillage, rape, and murderfest.

What is even scarier is I suspect the same of some people.

Edited December 30, 2021 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

On the topic of capital punishment for murderers, I'd like to toss out an idea. I do not expect anyone to agree with it. I'm not even sure that I do, at least not consistently. But I want to put it out there.

(@katherine the greatI would feel the same way you would if that was my daughter. And @MacGyver, you may be right that sending a murderer to the Spirit World is doing him a service.)

Okay, here goes: 

God is love (First John chapter 4, verses 8 and 16). Exactly what all that means I do not claim to fully understand, but THAT'S what was taught by “the disciple Jesus loved.”

We are created in the image of God. We are either co-eternal with God (King Follet Discourse) or co-equal with God (original wording of the King Follet Discourse). The point is, we are made of the same stuff God is.

Therefore WE are also LOVE. The least among us is also love. And the worst among us is also love.

I am not wise enough to say what misperceptions could cause one of us to think that committing monstrous acts would make them happy. Fortunately it is not my job to figure that out. My job is to “forgive all men” (D&C 64:10). And to protect the innocent at the same time.

Therefore I place no limitations on the healing power of the Atonement of Christ. None whatsoever.

I do not know what the right course of action is in a specific case. As I said, MacGyver may be right. What I propose is a shift in perception about who and what the least among us, and the worse among us, really are.

We are all made of the same stuff God is.  We are all Love.

By this logic Satan is love.