Which one is right re: capital punishment?

[bluegoose]

I had a lengthy chat with a close friend this weekend about the Church's stance on capital punishment. He pointed out that in the Seminary instructor's manual as well as the institute student guides the following statement is given regarding the Church's stance on capital punishment:

Alma 1:17–18. Capital Punishment
"The Law of God is "Whoso sheddeth man's blood
by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). In 1889
the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles prepared a declaration regarding the Church’s
position on capital punishment:

“We solemnly make the following declarations, viz.:
“That this Church views the shedding of human blood
with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing
of human beings, except in conformity with the civil
law, as a capital crime which should be punished by
shedding the blood of the criminal, after a public trial
before a legally constituted court of the land. . . .
“The revelations of God to this Church make death the
penalty for capital crime, and require that offenders
against life and property shall be delivered up to and
tried by the laws of the land” (“Official Declaration,”
Millennial Star, Jan. 20, 1890, 33–34).

As one who is opposed to CP, I then referenced the current church policy as stated on lds.org:

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.

So which one is it - Is the church neutral on the subject of capital punishment and if so, why does the previous statement from 1889 remain in the current teacher's manuals and study guides so prominently and authoritatively?

[The Fourth Nephite]

I had a lengthy chat with a close friend this weekend about the Church's stance on capital punishment. He pointed out that in the Seminary instructor's manual as well as the institute student guides the following statement is given regarding the Church's stance on capital punishment:




As one who is opposed to CP, I then referenced the current church policy as stated on lds.org:



So which one is it - Is the church neutral on the subject of capital punishment and if so, why does the previous statement from 1889 remain in the current teacher's manuals and study guides so prominently and authoritatively?

Wow, How can both be right? I think I just lost my testimony.

Personally, I'm OK with life without parole. That way mistakes can be rectified. It's probably cheaper, too.

[Solon]

That's a really interesting find, bluegoose. If you go to bluegoose's link, the quotation is on page 171 of the manual/pdf.

I don't know what to make of these types of apparent contradictions that show up in official publications. I really don't. We can't blame it on outdated textbook - it was published in 2009.

[UtahDan]

That's a really interesting find, bluegoose. If you go to bluegoose's link, the quotation is on page 171 of the manual/pdf.

I don't know what to make of these types of apparent contradictions that show up in official publications. I really don't. We can't blame it on outdated textbook - it was published in 2009.

Correlation=FAIL.

[bluegoose]

Wow, How can both be right? I think I just lost my testimony.

Personally, I'm OK with life without parole. That way mistakes can be rectified. It's probably cheaper, too.

Nobody said both were right.

I'm just wondering why the correlation department decided to leave the "Official Declaration" statement from an 1890 Millennial Star in the current Institute and 121/122 manuals when it is so clearly stated on the church's website that this is no longer the position of the church.

And there is no question that is life without payroll is cheaper under our current system.

Oh and for accuracy, someone pointed out to me that the statement does not appear in the seminary teacher's manual as I mentioned in my first post. I don't have access to it, so I guess I misunderstood my friend when he was referring to the Institute manual instead.

[SeattleUte]

Of course I disapprove of the old one. The later one, though, is in a way more offensive to me. That a religion proclaims official neutrality about the death penalty is disappointing. This is the kind of guidance a religion should provide. (LDS neutrality on so many issues of enormous moral import and implication, even as the LDS church proclaims Gettysburgs about such things as gay marriage, is a Waters pet peave; I agree with him.) As far as I'm concerned, professed netruality is tantamount to endorsement from an institution whose members are so profoundly socially conservative.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Of course I disapprove of the old one. The later one, though, is in a way more offensive to me. That a religion proclaims official neutrality about the death penalty is disappointing. This is the kind of guidance a religion should provide. (LDS neutrality on so many issues of enormous moral import and implication, even as the LDS church proclaims Gettysburgs about such things as gay marriage, is a Waters pet peave; I agree with him.) As far as I'm concerned, professed netruality is tantamount to endorsement from an institution whose members are so profoundly socially conservative.

There is truth in what you're saying here.

[pellegrino]

There is truth in what you're saying here.

especially when a new manual cites the old stance. But hey, we're neutral (nudge nudge, wink wink)

[The Fourth Nephite]

I just read on todays SL Tribune (sorry it was paper, therefore no link) that California plans to spend $125 million a year administering the death penalty and it is spending $400 million for a new death row and execution chamber.

California's death row population is less than 800 and only 13 have been executed in the last 30 years.

That's a lot of money, especially in this economy.

[UtahDan]

Correlation=FAIL.