--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Taylor, Joseph E. collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 4 number: 5 published: 1901-03 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: 'Joseph E. Taylor, "Capital Punishment: Viewed from a Scriptural Standpoint," *Improvement Era* 4, no. 5 (March 1901): 354–362.' source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera0405unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera0405unse start_page: 354 end_page: 362 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1901-03) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera0405unse publication_year: 1901 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1901, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # Capital Punishment: Viewed from a Scriptural Standpoint CAPITAL PUNISHMENT—VIEWED FROM A SCRIPTURAL STANDPOINT. BY ELDER JOSEPH E. TAYLOR, OP THE STAKE PRESIDENCY OF THE SALT LAKE STAKE OF ZION. That some of the states of our Union have repealed the law making murder in the first degree punishable by death, and substituted therefor imprisonment for life at hard labor; also that there was introduced in our State Legislature, in 1897, a bill known as "House Bill No. 2. An act in relation to capital crimes and punishments," containing similar provisions to those above named, (which, however, failed of passage); and that there are many persons in our community who entertain views favorable to substituting imprisonment for life at hard labor in place of death for murder in the first degree, is my apology for presenting this article for insertion in the Era. In the earliest periods of the world's history, we read of nothing pertaining to what is termed civil government. The only government of which we have any record, at this time, is that of a patriarchal character. If any other form of government existed, we are in ignorance concerning it. As the patriarchs were Godfearing men, and were the subjects of his special favors, and lived in close communion with him, it was not difficult for them to obtain the mind of the Lord upon all subjects of interest. And unquestionably, all laws of equity between man and man, suited to his fallen condition, were made known by God himself. Reasoning from this standpoint, we conclude that the penalties to be inflicted upon the transgressor proceeded from the same source. This being the case, a perfect confidence in God allowed no « CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 855 misgivings or questionings in regard to the justice of the Eternal One. Consequently, man was satisfied to abide by the word of the Lord. When the first murder had been committed, it appears that God dealt personally with the transgressor; questioned him in regard thereto; and gave him the opportunity to defend himself. After this, he pronounced the sentence upon guilty Cain; the nature of which is not recorded; but a sentence so severe, that he exclaimed, "My punishment is greater than I can bear." Some writers, and others who advocate the abolishment of the death penalty, point to the fact that as God did not inflict death upon Cain in expiation of his crime, that this is strong evidence that he does not approve of the death penalty for murder. It appears to me that the Almighty wished to make an example of his divine displeasure in so marked a manner for this crime of murder that he inflicted a punishment upon the first murderer many times more severe than death itself. I am of the opinion that this first murderer would have readily and gladly accepted of death, rather than the penalty which was inflicted; which led him to exclaim, "My punishment is greater than I can bear." According to Bible chronology and Bible history, sixteen hundred years had passed away before God delegated to man the authority to execute jugdment upon the murderer; which he did in this wise: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeih man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Gen. 9: 5, 6.) The reason for the death penalty is here given. Because man is made in the image of God. I submit: is man less in the image of God today, than at the time that I have named? If he is not, why should not the death penalty follow the crime of murder now, as well as in the day when the law with its penalty was revealed to Noah? Further: who knows the value of human life more than he who gave that life, and who has stamped his own image thereupon? And still further: who so capable of deciding what penalty shall be inflicted upon the individual who wilfully destroys that life which God alone can give? 856 IMPROVEMENT ERA. There may be still another reason why God at this time delegated to man the right to execute the law against the murderer, and so clearly defined the penalty. The time had come or was approaching when national existence would take the place of patriarchal rule and government, at least with some of the peoples of the earth, and that portions would gradually merge into these changed conditions, making necessary the revealing of the very highest type of earthly government which the Almighty would give —as well as a pattern for future ages. For, strange as it may appear, the Lord always did and always will give first, the higher law. Inferior law follows as the result of disobedience to, or the rejection of, the higher. In the days of Moses, Israel having so entirely failed to observe the higher law —the law of the gospel — God gave to them the lesser law; the law of carnal commandments. He had, however, introduced into that law the death penalty for the crime of murder; which was strongly emphasized through Moses several times during his life, culminating in this solemn charge in regard to the murderer: "Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee." (Deut. 19: 13.) Thus plainly intimating that the whole nation would be held responsible for failing to execute the law. God had declared through Moses, previous to this time, "Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death." (Num. 35: 31.) In other words, there shall be no commutation of the sentence, but in every instance, he shall suffer death. More than one prophet accused Israel of failing to execute the law. Isaiah declared: "Your hands are full of, blood." Again, "They haste to shed innocent blood." Would the hands of Israel have been full of blood if execution had followed the crime? I answer. No; they would not. Neither would they have hasted to shed innocent blood, if execution had swiftly followed the crime. Some who have contended against capital punishment have argued that, admitting the law was in full force up to the time that David committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and after- CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 357 wards planned the death of Uriah, in order to hide his crime, no action was taken to inflict the punishment upon David, although he acknowledged his guilt to Nathan the prophet; but on the contrary, that Nathan said to David, "The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die," is a very strong evidence of the modification of the penalty. And further, would the Lord be justified in making an exception in David's case? To which I The reply: Lord had a perfect right to make such an exception, if he saw fit to do so, and that too without changing the general applicability of the law. But let us follow David's subsequent history. It will be remembered that it -was said of him, he was "a man after God's own heart." Also, "In nothing did he sin, save in the case of Uriah and his wife." That the Almighty had some wise purpose in view in preserving David's life, need not be questioned; but did he altogether escape punishment? Read the twelfth chapter of second Samuel, and there you will find what calamities were to follow him in consequence of his transgression; which were fulfilled to the very letter, as is recorded in Bible history. David himself realized the enormity of his offense, and exclaimed at one time, "I remember my sin, and my transgression is ever before me." In contemplating his condition after this life, he seemed to fully understand that his sin would follow him even there. Hence the hope he expressed in these words: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph, the Lord has confirmed the declarations of the Prophet Nathan in regard to David, for in speaking concerning the grave wrong which he did to Uriah and his wife, he says, "Therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them (wives) out of the world, for I have given them unto another, saith the Lord." We need not follow this one seeming exception any further; for it would be hard indeed to make choice as to which of the punishments would be the most preferable, David's, or the death penalty. With this one exception, in all the Old Testament record, there is naught to be found but a continuous confirmation of the law given to Noah: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." 358 IMPROVEMENT ERA. Come we now to the New Testament, and we will consider a few of the arguments used by some modern divines, as well as many others, based mainly upon the sayings of the lowly Nazarene, in that great and grand Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in the fifth chapter of Matthew's Gospel. It is very evident that Jesus addressed himself, upon this oc- casion, to his disciples, and that he taught them the advanced doctrines of the gospel which he had come to establish. Doctrines which were suited to those only who had embraced the gospel. Upon this occasion he stated: "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time: Thou shalt not kill." Did he say that this law was not now in force? On the contrary, he sustained the law, and added to it: "That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment," etc. Thus emphasizing the law against murder. Previous to the words just quoted, he had said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."— Matt. 5: 17, 18. The question arises. Has the law been fulfilled? That Jesus himself observed and sustained the law in every act of his life and in all of his teachings, none will deny. In his endeavor to establish a higher law, or the law of the gospel, he was successful only to a very limited extent. Instance the act of Peter.aman who had sat constantly under the teachings of Jesus. When an attempt was made to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword and smote off the ear of the high priest's servant. "Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." It is the same sentiment, expressed in other words, as given to Noah: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." All the ceremonies which were typical of the Savior, his death^ etc.,were no longer needed, but the fundamental principles of the law still remained and were of full force. They were in no sense abrogated by his coming, his death, or his resurrection. We repeat, God gave a law in the early periods of the earth's history suited to man's fallen condition, which was the highest type CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 359 of earthly government, and he designed that it should remain in force at least until man should pass to a higher plane than the one he now occupies. I have heard individuals who are strongly in favor of abolishing capital punishment quote exultingly the words of the Savior, and wrongly interpret them by saying, an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, is no longer demanded: they generally omit what follows: "But I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, give him thy cloak also," etc. I maintain that humanity has signally failed to observe the higher law that Jesus taught, but have retained the eye-for-an-eye and tooth-f or-a-tooth provision, with great tenacity up to the present time. In proof of this, I would call for the records of courts throughout the civilized world, from the courts of the justice of the peace to the highest tribunal of the land, and see if the complaints, the evidence, the arguments, the findings, the rulings, and the decisions have not always been in keeping with the eye-for-eye and tooth-f or- tooth provision with damages added thereto, which latter is altogether at variance with Jesus' teachings. Yet these same persons are loud in their demands that the penalty shall be abolished, which God himself declared should be inflicted upon the individual who was guilty of the highest crime known to the law; namely, that of shedding innocent blood. What is offered in lieu thereof? In some instances, imprisonment with solitary confinement for life; in others, imprisonment with hard labor for life, with certain commutations in certain specified cases, and under certain circumstances. What is the object sought to be gained by this change? It seems to me that imprisonment with solitary confinement for life would be worse than death. Also, that imprisonment with hard labor for life would beget a strong desire to die, to end such misery. The most feasible answer I have heard given to this question is, "To give the murderer a chance to repent and not force him into the presence of his maker with his hands dripping with blood." 360 IMPROVEMENT ERA. I will ask, what atonement or reparation can ever be made by one who has shed innocent blood, that will be at all acceptable to God, or in any way relieve him from the awful responsibility? I answer emphatically, all— and the only thing —he can do, is to give his life — life for life. The murderer may sincerely regret his wicked act: but it is out of his power to give back the life he has taken. And as God alone possesses the power to give life, it is a sin directly against God; consequently, man is powerless to condone this offense. If the murderer could only realize the awful consequences of his crime, he would willingly give his life, rather than seek to retain it. To deprive him of life under these circumstances is a merciful act rather than otherwise. For none knew better than God himself what penalty should be inflicted for this crime. Let the murderer confess upon the scaffold that he believes in Jesus; of what avail now, is such belief to him? It does not relieve him in the least. God forbade him even our pity. For, said he, "Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel." John, the beloved disciple who echoed in his utterances the sentiments of the Savior, said, "Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." The prayer of Jesus, while upon the cross, is quoted as evidence of divine forgiveness, even for the murderer. For Jesus said, "Father: forgive them, for they know not what they do." This was the highest exhibition of that divine compassion which characterized our Lord and Savior. That this prayer will be answered in bringing their children out from "under the curse," I do not doubt; but I assume the position that it is not yet answered, at least, to the extent of relieving them from the consequences of their fathers' wicked act. When Pilate washed his hands and said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it," the Jews assumed all re- sponsibility, and exclaimed, "His blood be on us and our children.'' Let us enquire what it has cost the children of Judah whose fathers assumed this terrible responsibility? Their national existence became, in a few years subsequent to this, a thing of the past. Their temple, the pride of the world, was so entirely destroyed that not one stone was left upon another. Their land was made CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 361 desolate. Their immense wealth, the accumulation of centuries of time, was conSscated. Their banishment to other lands and among other peoples followed. Nor is this all. Eighteen centuries of ostracism, cruelty and oppression, unparalleled in the history of the world, followed. They were not even recognized as citizens anywhere, until a few years ago. In short, they became as the prophet had said, "An astonishment, a proverb, a hiss, and a byword among all nations." And the end is not yet. Nor will it be, until Jesus stands upon Mount Olivet. Then shall the mountain cleave in twain, for he comes now to deliver the Jews who have gathered to the land of their fathers, the nations having united together for their entire destruction. The Savior of the world now stands revealed before them, and they shall ask, "What are these wounds in thy hands?" He will answer: "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." The result of this discovery will be a literal fulfillment of Zechariah's prediction, for now the Savior himself who suffered shall turn the key: "And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace, and of supplication, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall morn as one mourneth for his only son; and shall be in bitterness as one that is in bitterness for his first born. And the land shall mourn ; every family apart, and their wives apart," etc. Speaking of Jerusalem, the prophet says, "Men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; and Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited." Then, and not till then, will the key be turned for their forgiveness, and that, too, by the very being whose life's blood their fathers demanded, and for which they held themselves and their children responsible. In the language of our late venerated president, Wilford Woodruff: "It costs something to shed the blood of prophets, and holy men of God: whether the crime is committed by an individual, a community, or a nation." We have quoted the law against murder and the penalty to be inflicted therefor, commencing with Noah, and following the same, many times repeated, down to the days of Jesus; and will only add in confirmation one more testimony, given in the past, that of John 362 IMPROVEMENT ERA. the Revelator; when upon the Isle of Patmos, and while under the powerful influence of the Spirit, he declared, "He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword." Has the Lord given, in our day,anything to confirm the law given in the past? As early as February 9, 1831, the Lord said, "Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shalt not kill;*but he that killeth shall die." — (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 42: 18, 19.) Thus the first declaration is emphasized. In the same section, verse 79, he defines the manner in which the law shall be executed against the murderer, in these words: "And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proven according to the laws of the land." At this time,1831,the death penalty for murder was according to law, and was almost universally applied. God recognized the law as a just one, both as to the arraignment of the guilty,the evidences of his or her guilt, and the execution of the law upon proof of such guilt. Instead of its being, as some claim, a relic of barbarism, at no time or in no place has our Father ever suggested a change or a substitute for the law as originally given. With the Latter-day Saints, this should be the end of all controversy upon this subject; and no maudlin sympathy such as is, by many, indulged in, should be exhibited towards the righteously condemned murderer, for heaven alone can determine his future.