On Forgiveness: Two Important Things

Two thoughts on forgiveness this Easter weekend: 

1) We only can forgive those who have hurt us. We have no right to claim we forgive anyone who has not hurt us. That is a mockery of the difficulty of forgiveness for those who actually have suffered. 

2) We are commanded to forgive everyone who has hurt us in any way - but there is nothing in that statement that requires we forget. Those are two different things. Forgiving when we can't forget is a deeper form of forgiveness than when we can forget - and, sometimes, forgetting is neither healthy nor appropriate, since it can feed continued hurt by the unrepentant.

A Beautiful Explanation of Not Judging Others

A friend of mine shared the following, and I want to share it here. It is one of the most beautiful explanations of the theological reason we should not judge others I have ever heard.
 ------------------------------------------------------------

Background: When I was a young child, someone harmed me in a terrible way. To date I have never harbored anger towards this person. Part of that comes from the fact that it never occurred to me to BE angry. Another part is that I can look at this person's life now and see what a sad condition it is in. I pray for this person's safety. I pray for happiness.

Every Psych book says that I should be in counseling. I should be going through 12 steps. I should be in bad shape. Everyone says that I have the right to be angry. I should demand justice. And, I guess in some ways I certainly could seek justice and I could be angry. I'm justified in doing so, right?

But I am not and it isn't even a dilemma on my part. I have forgiven this person.

So, now we think, "Okay, they'll be punished in the hereafter."

Maybe.

But, here is how I picture judgement day (sort of):

Say we are at the bar of judgement, and those whom we have harmed are allowed to come and air grievances. Maybe they can petition the court to punish us. Perhaps we are reminded of those wrongs before our accusers show up...you know, to prepare our case.  Either way, let's say that we can see the court docket, and when we see someone who wronged us, we can show up at the appointed time and ask for justice.

If this scenario is correct, I will not be found pressing charges against the person who harmed me. In fact, I may show up as a character witness to point out the good things and charitable acts that I've witnessed from this person. Maybe I'll not even mention the harm done to me. Of course, this person will have other "crimes" that will be brought up in court, but I won't be an accuser.

Now, when it's my turn at the bar to be judged, I sure hope that the people whom I've harmed choose not to "press charges" against me either.  

So, I guess I see the Savior act in a similar way that He did when the woman taken in adultery was brought before him. He was asked to be a judge in that situation. At some point, He asked the woman where her accusers were. There were none...for that crime.
Maybe He was then an advocate and encouraged her to change her ways.

When our time comes, may we not have accusers either.

The Danger of Living in the Past: A Principle for Personal Consideration

I was watching a TV show with one of my daughters a while ago, and the following was a line that I want to share. It has a lot of applications to faith (too many to try to list here), and it highlights one aspect of my own philosophy that is important to me:

When you live in the past, you lose the present.

It's not easy - not at all - to let go of many aspects of the past (and the bitterness that accompanies some of those aspects), since they contributed to the present in real and tangible ways - and it's not healthy to let go of the past in lots of ways, but it's really important not to live in or obsess about the past (whether that is one's own past or a communal past). All we have is the present, and the only healthy objective is to make the best on-going present possible. Living in the past is perhaps the best way to not allow that to happen - to limit in a very real way the growth that is possible by letting go of the past.

Again, this is applicable to lots of aspects of life, and I am not going to try to make a list. How it applies will vary from person to person, so, as the title says, this simply is something to consider.

Pres. Kimball: "I Made What I Thought Was the Loving Decision"

John L. Lund's Audio CD titled "Love One Another" includes the following, which I absolutely love (bolding is mine): 

There were some kinds of challenges that President Kimball had that were very, very difficult and it came to a point of sometimes weighing church membership in the balance and he had to make the decision. And it was on the basis of his decision that the first presidency of the Church would act at the time, because this was when he was an apostle.

President Kimball under those circumstances would say that sometimes lives are so complex, conditions are so incredibly confused, guilt and responsibility are so diffused in so many ways that it is very, very difficult and it is not a clear cut issue of right and of wrong. And he said that frequently with some of these more difficult problems he would pray mightily unto the Lord and ask for His guidance and direction and sometimes would not receive a clear cut answer as to the direction that he should proceed and that when that would happen, he would stop and ask himself the question:

“What is the loving thing to do?”

And he said, "Some day I know that I will stand before the judgment bar of God, and some of the decisions I made will have been wrong. I will have erred. I will have made a mistake that maybe the decision should have been another way."

And the Savior will ask me: 

“Why did you make that decision? That was not the correct decision.’"

And I will say with the integrity of my heart: 

"Lord, I did that because at the time I wasn’t sure what was the direction that I should go and so I made what I thought was the loving decision.”

I am confident that God will look down upon me on those occasions and forgive me of my error."  

The Danger and Damning Nature of Cheap Forgiveness

I believe strongly that “cheap forgiveness” is very much like “cheap grace” – and every bit as damaging.

By that, I mean that those who have not been hurt by someone specific have absolutely NO right to talk about having forgiven that person. Only those who have been wronged can forgive – and when someone who has not been wronged talks of having forgiven someone, it only serves to condemn the inability of those who were harmed to “forgive” as easily. What is misunderstood so often is that the one who thinks he has forgiven really hasn’t. Nothing has been done to him, personally, that requires forgiveness – so his forgiveness is a cheap counterfeit.

Someone could argue that every bad action harms lots of people to varying degrees – and I won’t argue against that. However, it’s patently obvious that all harm is not equal and, likewise, that all recovery is not equal. Thus, not all “forgiveness” is equal – since the deeper the damage, the harder the healing and the forgiveness.

If I could teach one thing to those who are harmed only tangentially, moderately shallowly or not at all it would be the realization that those who seem to be unable to forgive cannot, and I mean absolutely cannot, be judged by we who can’t see their hearts and their wounds perfectly. It is the concept that forgiveness of deep wounds that takes a lifetime means more in the grand scheme of things than forgiveness of paper cuts that take an hour. Jesus is the ultimate example not because of the quickness of his forgiveness but because of the depth of the pain and the wounds he forgave – and it interesting to ponder the source of that pain. Yes, he suffered for us – but it is just as real to say that the pain was inflicted BY his Father as it is to say it was inflicted because of us.

Thus, in a very real and very powerful way, he forgave his Father for asking him to become our scapegoat – for placing him in the position to suffer so greatly – to cast him out in a way that is very similar in practical terms to what Janusz’s wife did to him in the 1954 book "The Long Walk" by Slavomir Rawicz. (The book is written as non-fiction, but it might be creative non-fiction - or historical non-fiction, depending on the term used.  "The Way Back" is a film adaptation of this memoir.  Reactions to the movie vary widely.)

There’s a lesson in there about the pain and suffering each of us endures simply as a result of Adam’s transgression and our faithful step into mortality – and our own need to “forgive God” for asking us to endure it.

Sometimes, Forgiveness Doesn't Include Forgetting

Forgiveness doesn't always include forgetting or complete trust on our part - nor does it have to include asking that consequences not be imposed. It simply means, at the most basic level, a willingness to give up the natural tendency to condemn and to insist on personal retribution and to not carry around destructive emotions. Full, Godly forgiveness is described in terms of forgetting and agreeing not to impose deserved penalties, but God is the only one who really can see into someone's heart and make that determination correctly. We are to strive for the ability to understand and apply full, Godlike forgiveness whenever possible, but . . .

There are situations where we simply can't forget or completely trust without restriction - like someone who has sexually abused children. There's no way I would advocate anything that would result in leaving children alone with that person, even if I was 100% convinced the person had repented, and even if I really did forgive the person. You don't drop off an alcholic in a bar, even if that alcoholic was completely sincere in his or her commitment to abstain. I also would not advocate the person be freed from having to serve a standard (even if minimal) jail sentence for those acts, even with sincere repentance and my forgiveness. Some things actually do require imposed consequences, imo.

I believe we should strive to love those who have hurt us, but I also believe that is a very different thing than forgetting, not advocating proper punishment, etc. There are people in my ward and my stake and my job and in my extended family, for example, whom I really do love - but if their actions are destructive . . .  Even if I can handle it, there's no way I'm exposing my wife and children to it, especially if it's just to prove that I really do love them.

I think we make many things much harder than they have to be. Idealism is great - but it really is only a theory, since none of us actually live in an ideal situation. It's OK to modify idealism to strike a balance with realism, as long as we never give up on the concept of the ideal and never stop looking for ways to get closer to it in whatever ways are possible. 
Too often we conflate these things and end up thinking we can't forgive. Forgiveness is hard enough; throwing totally unrealistic and even destructive elements into the mix can make it impossible.

Some Things That Are Lovely in Concept Are Repugnant in Pracitce

A friend and I were talking once about another denomination's worship service he attended, and the following is the heart of our conversation:

My friend said:

I went to a special noon-hour service at a local church. At one point, the pastor had all attendants approach the front area and kneel. He then went around, placing his hands on each head, saying, "By the commandment of Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins." It was very different from what I'm used to as a lifelong Mormon, and as I watched it happen to several others I had mixed feelings. Then those words were uttered to me, and I felt God's love at that very moment. 

My response was:

That sounds like a very sincere and affirming service - but it is an example of a religious tradition I simply can't accept personally (the feeling of love which accompanied it, notwithstanding). I understand and don't question that someone with a repentant heart can feel the Spirit in that situation testifying of God's love, but the practice itself is one I instinctively question - and I don't like it after considering it. All of us have something about Mormon culture that bothers us, and this is something about that other culture that bothers me.

1) I don't like the idea that a mortal can forgive sins someone commits against someone else. Someone who has not been harmed in a real way has no business, in my opinion, saying they forgive someone. To me, that cheapens the real, often deep, pain sin can cause in the victim's life. Forgiveness, I believe, carries with it the assumption of harm in some way - and only the harmed have the right to forgive.

2) I don't like the idea that someone who often has no idea what sins someone has committed can say, "I forgive your sins." What if there was a congregant who was sexually abusing his children? What if there was someone who refused to pay child support? What if there was someone who was physically abusing his or her spouse? What if there was a habitual adulterer? What if the person simply was not repentant in any way? 

3) I really do believe in the concept and principle of repentance as one of the core aspects of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and such a practice, in theory, destroys that need. At least in Catholicism, there is a foundation of confession; in the case you described, there doesn't seem to be any "condition" on the forgiveness - and that is really, really "wrong" to me.

In summary, I get it that it can be a wonderful experience for someone who is humble and has a broken heart and contrite spirit, and I get it that it might be considered symbolic in that tradition - but it might not, and, taken literally, I really don't like a mortal forgiving sins about which he doesn't know and for which the sinner doesn't have a repentant heart.

How Should Forgiveness and Repentance Be Taught?

Often, we group forgiveness and repentance together in lessons and teach about them as one combined lesson.  I don't like that approach. 

I have no problem with teaching forgiveness and repentance on back-to-back Sundays and emphasizing that they are related in a very real way, but I think we do a grave disservice to both principles if we lump them together - both ideologically and in practical, time-allotment terms. They each deserve a full lesson, at the very least.

I have no problem with linking the two and showing their closeness and inter-dependence. I just think each one is important enough and unique enough in and of itself that trying to teach them both together within the teaching structure currently available to us at church (30-40 minutes, max, at any given time) ends up shorting the attention we should pay to each of them. That's why I would favor teaching them in separate but concurrent lessons - or together in a fireside format where there is well over an hour to address them.
I also have no problem with a lesson where the focus is on not judging - and forgiveness and repentance are among multiple things mentioned that are part of learning not to judge. However, if forgiveness is the central topic, and if we only have 30-40 minutes to teach about it . . .

Finally, a friend of mine once said the following:

Personally I don't believe that anyone really deserves to be forgiven. Sure they can stop doing whatever is perceived to be wrong, apologize, etc. but it's not like they can go back in time and undo whatever mistakes they have already made (and the effects of those mistakes). That's why I see forgiveness as more of a gift from God (and the person who is hurt) rather than something we really earn. As far as forgiving others, I think it is just part of being a charitable person to not continue to hold a grudge over something in the past that you can't really change now.

I really like that - since it is both profound and simple.

No Fishing in the Ponds of Past Mistakes

A wonderful sister in Arlington, MA told my wife years ago something profound when my wife was struggling to care for our young children each Sunday while I served as the Seminary teacher in a small branch miles away. It was hard, and my wife wondered aloud one day why I couldn't be there to help her.

My memory version of what Sister Sloan told her is:

There is a bridge spanning a canyon that is very deep. Far below the bridge a small stream runs through the canyon. The local people regularly take pieces of paper, write their hurt feelings and bitterness on the paper and drop them from the bridge to the stream below. In the middle of the bridge, where the people drop their notes, is a sign which says, simply:

NO FISHING!

The Church's Flaws Make It True

A friend of mine wrote the following a while ago, and I want to comment about it here:

For me, the whole process of becoming aware of the imperfections and human frailties in the operations of the church (historically etc.) has been a tremendous opportunity for personal growth. It has helped me remove some of my pride, become somewhat less judgmental, hopefully a little more forgiving, focus more fully on love and the essentials of what Jesus taught. For me, becoming aware of the humanity has helped me progress out of a spiritual plateau that I didn’t know I was in (yes, first by crashing down but that is another topic).

If the purpose of the church is to help us progress spiritually - to help us grow personally, I can’t think of anyway that I could improve on its current composition to help it fulfill that goal (at least for me personally) more effectively than it is currently doing for me.

One big step was realizing that in learning to forgive all men (D&C 64:10 - not condone but forgive) I needed to forgive those in the Church who came before me for any mistakes they may have made.

It is the resistance we encounter that makes us stronger – wherever it may exist.

I want to add only that we sometimes lose sight of how radically different the stated goal of Mormonism is than any other Christian religion. (Buddhism's ultimate objective is similar, but that's another topic.) We talk of a literal and extensive conversion of character - of becoming fully something we now are only partially. Compared to the more "mundane" goal of mainstream Christianity, we really are radicals and extreme liberals theologically. I think that's important to recognize and admit openly - that we have a radically liberal theology, taught within a generally conservative organizational structure (mixed with quite liberal elements, like a lay local leadership).

The things that bother me most about the Church are the more mundane aspects of organization and the interpersonal conflicts that inevitably arise when people with different perspectives interact and strive for unity. The things that inspire me the most are the visionary aspects that still blow my mind on a regular basis - the fact that such flawed people still could articulate such a mind-blowing theology and cosmic paradigm. It reminds me of the founding of the United States in some ways - some really flawed people who couldn't live the ideals they wrote (e.g., in theory "all men are created equal" [except in practice for slaves, who only count as part of a man for census calculations - and the women, who aren't even mentioned directly]) but who still created something great and incredibly liberating.

I'm not sure if I would phrase it like my friend did when he sent the message ("The Church's Flaws Make It True") - but I absolutely would say that the Church's flaws make it real and powerful. Maybe, in the end, that is the same thing as "true and living" - perhaps defined as "not artificial and able to grow". In the end, I still define "true" as "pointed in the correct direction" (like "true north") - and, since no other major religion (other than Buddhism) of which I am aware posits what we posit as the ultimate objective and purpose of life, I feel fine using the word "true" in that sense.

"My back was to Christ, and all I could see was the person who had hurt me."

I was part of a group a while ago that was discussing the book, "The Peacegiver" - by James L. Farrell.  One of my friends in that group made the following comment, and when I came across it again today I was moved as much as I had been when she first shared it.  I hope it touches someone else as much as it touched me:
-------------------------------------------
I wasn't a fan of the way this book was written (the narrative voice).

HOWEVER...

The most significant thing I learned came from the retelling of the story of David, Nabal, and Abigail. Abigail becomes a type of Christ in this story, interceding on behalf of Nabal but also saving David from sinning in anger. What occurred to me as I read the vivid description of this account was the physical placement of each of these characters.

Abigail was physically in between Nabal and David. For years, I had tried to forgive others without complete success because I had the characters in the wrong place. It was like my offender was before me and Christ was behind me. I received mercy from Christ so I would turn and offer it to my offender. With this positioning the weight of forgiveness rested on my shoulders alone. As I turned to forgive my offender, my back was to Christ and all I could see was the person who had hurt me.

The story of Abigail put Christ between me and my offender, so that I had to look at Christ instead of the one who'd hurt me. There in front of me, arms outstretched and exuding unconditional love, was my Savior saying "upon me let this iniquity be". I could see the love He had for my offender as well as the love He had for me, and I couldn't even look at my offender without seeing the face of the Lord. Only after applying this principle to all my relationships was I able to completely experience a change of heart toward all my fellowmen.

What Does It Mean to Be "Blameless" in How We Walk Before God?

In the previous two New Year's Resolution Posts this month, I wrote about walking (not running or sitting) before God and walking "before God".  In this post, I want to share some thoughts about walking "blamelessly" before God. 

In the context of the usage in Alma 5, "blame" is defined as:

responsibility for anything deserving of censure

"Censure" is defined as:

strong or vehement expression of disapproval

Thus, walking "blamelessly" before God means walking in such a way that God will not strongly or vehemently disapprove. 

Two things struck me as I initially defined the central words and reached the defintion above - one which I have understood for a long time and one that was completely new to me. 

The one I have understood for a long time deals with the nature of the Atonement and my understanding of the difference between "sin" and "transgression".  Essentially, God does not disapprove strongly or vehemently of our best efforts to act according to the dictates of our own consciences.  In fact, I believe our 2nd Article of Faith teaches that we will not be punished for the things we do as a direct result of the Fall - which, in this case, include transgressions of eternal law we commit out of ignorance or as a result of things we simply can't control.  If we do not choose consciously to do things that are contrary to our best understanding of what we believe God wants of us, those actions are paid for through the Atonement of Jesus, the Christ - and I believe the magnitude of those things for which we have been redeemed already is MUCH larger than most people realize. 

The second thing that struck me was not new in theory, as it is something I have believed for a long time, but it was new to me in the context of walking blamelessly before God.  It really is just a re-statement of the first one I just explained, but I think it is important to phrase it the way it came to my mind.  It is:

God does not expect us to walk "perfectly", nor does he expect us to walk without stumbling and falling and getting skinned up in the process.  He simply asks us to avoid those things of which he would disapprove "strongly" or "vehemently".

 

The best example I can give is how I view my own desires for my children.  I expect them to make mistakes in their lives.  In fact, I believe that is the only way they will learn many important lessons in life - by experiencing the opposition that must needs be and failing occasionally (or more than occasionally, if they are like me).  I am not about to react strongly or vehemently to the vast majority of mistakes they make.  However, there are some things they might do to which I would react strongly or vehemently.  Those things are so serious in my eyes that I would go outside my normal principle of teaching correct principles and watching them govern themselves to actively begging them to stop. 

The thing that struck me is that there really are relatively few things that fit that category that I believe are "universally accepted", but, even with my own children, the underlying principle would be things that violate their own consciences.  Thus, the things toward which I would react strongly or vehemently in relation to one child would differ somewhat from the things that would cause the same reaction in relation to another child - assuming I know my children well enough as differing individuals to understand what and how much they understand about the things they believe and the choices they make. 

I can't "blame" them for things they do out of ignorance, and I refuse to "blame" them for things they do with which I disagree simply because I disagree - as long as I believe they are acting in accordance with their own understanding and conscience.  Most importantly, the list of things they might do that would bring my strong and vehement disapproval and cause me to "blame" and "censure" them is much shorter than many people probably think. 

What I gained this week from my contemplation of this concept of walking "blamelessly" before God is that the assignment of blame rests with GOD, not with us - and that, in my opinion, that assignment will be based MUCH more on how well we walk in accordance to the dictates of our own consciences than on the exact steps we take in our walk before God.

We All Experience Repentance and Forgiveness Differently

When it comes to repentance, I believe people simply experience it in varying ways - for three reasons:

1) People simply experience things differently.

Members tend to over-generalize the most common examples onto everyone (like Oliver Cowdery's burning and stupor), but we are taught that the gifts and fruits of the Spirit are various and diverse. Some experience a unique calm; others a flash of insight ("pure intelligence"); others a cessation of worry or doubt (a "settling of the issue" feeling); others a sudden burst of joy; others, like me, a sense of peace. Whatever the specific manifestation, the person generally recognizes that they feel differently about it - that they no longer feel racked or tormented or pained by it. The "suffering" has been removed. That's enough for me.

2) I also believe the intensity of the feeling of forgiveness generally is commensurate with the level or degree of unrighteousness inherent in the actual sin. ("Your joy will be as sweet as your anguish was bitter.")

Alma, for example, felt he had been involved in the spiritual murder of people; of course, his suffering was INTENSE - as was the subsequent release from that suffering. His forgiveness was distinct and intense, because his repentance ("change") was meteoric and immediate. (If you can call three days of intense suffering immediate.)

3) Most of us, however, don't go from sinning in a vile manner to sudden and full repentance. Most of us change gradually from one stage to another (line-upon-line, precept upon precept), so our recognition of the change (repentance) and the subsequent forgiveness is not nearly as intense as someone like Alma - or Zeezrom. Think about it: How many times in the entire scriptural canon do we read of experiences similar to Alma's? Very, very rarely. You almost have to start at one extreme to experience the other in a sudden and dramatic way. Otherwise, it's incremental and subtle - and, again, I'm fine with that.

I really would rather not descend to the point where such a conversion and intense forgiveness would be possible, since I don't want to risk not being able to change. God had a specific mission for Alma that required he be raked over the coals in that manner; I kind of hope he doesn't have that in store for me.

The Real Power of Grace

If there truly are things that are so deeply ingrained genetically / physiologically as to make it impossible to overcome them in this life, those things are covered in the Atonement through God's grace. Being "punished for own sins, not Adam's transgression" covers the unchosen effects of Adam's transgression on all his posterity - or it would have no real power.

I don't know for sure if there are genetic tendencies that are so strong that they truly cannot be overcome by a particular individual, but I suspect there are such constraints for nearly all of us - if not all. Isn't that the whole point of grace - forgiveness of those things that are outside of our control that otherwise, according to a strict Law of Moses application, would condemn us?

Becoming a More Forgiving Person

As I come to the end of this month, I look back on my resolution and realize I have not gained any new and deep insights that are earth-shattering and incredibly profound. However, I have gained a much deeper understanding of the concept, and I am grateful for the experience.

Having said that, I had an interesting epiphany as I was preparing to write this post, and I want to share it as my summary about forgiveness:

In order to need to forgive when forgiveness is difficult, one must be harmed in a way that the person feels as unwarranted and/or intentional - or not understandable. When pain or harm is seen as warranted and/or unintentional, when it is relatively easy to understand why the other person did what they did, it is much easier to forgive.

As I pondered this epiphany, it struck me HARD that learning to see others as God sees them - learning to be charitable in our expectations of others - learning to not be offended by the words and actions of others - becoming meek and merciful - this is the single most powerful way to be able to forgive. It also is a way to avoid the need to forgive in many of the more "minor" cases of harm - since a meek and merciful person will be less inclined to be offended and less likely to feel the need to forgive in the first place.

In summary, becoming a forgiving person BEFORE major pain and harm occurs is key.

Healing Victims During Their Suffering

I am going to do something unusual for me in a resolution post like this.

As I have thought about how to approach forgiveness (particularly forgiving more immediately and completely), I was struck by something Silver Rain said in a comment from last week's resolution post - To Forgive Is Better Than to Forget. Her comment was:

"Even further, for a victim, healing through the atonement can come while the sin is still being committed. It is unimaginable, but it is true."

I really LOVE that statement, and I would like to get reactions and responses from everyone about that concept specifically.

To Forgive Is Better Than to Forget

Matthew 6:14-15 says:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

My resolution this month is to forgive more fully and immediately. Honestly, I have never had a hard time forgiving, in general, and letting go of anger and disappointment, in particular, but something really struck me as I contemplated this resolution this week.

There is a HUGE difference between being able to "forgive" and being able to "forget" - and forgiveness is MUCH harder when forgetting is impossible. In my own life, the easiest example of this is an experience I had with a job - actually two jobs with similar examples.

1) I once worked as a Training Manager, and one of my primary responsibilities was to lead a certification process that was critical to the success of the company. Part of that process was compiling and systematizing all of the training records. Long story short, I had to resign from my job when I discovered some improper practices with regard to training records required for large contract bids and was told to ignore them.

2) I once worked as a Director at a company for a very short time. I was fired without warning, and the justifications I was given were ludicrous - they simply didn't make any sense, at all, at the time. I found out afterward that the person most intimately responsible for my evaluation had applied for my position before I was hired, and once I was gone she was given my position. Suddenly, it made sense.

What struck me as I thought about forgiveness this month is that there is no way for me to forget these situations and what they did to me. If it simply was a case of letting go, it wouldn't be all that hard for me - but, in each case, I had to find another job. In that process, I had to explain my short employment term in each case - over and over and over again. Literally, there is no way for me to forget - and what initially was quite easy for me to forgive has become less easy to let go, simply because it has been an unavoidable part of trying to find work again.

My only point for now is that we all need to be very careful about judging other people's ability to forgive - particularly based on the assumption that they should be able to forget. I really believe I have forgiven each person who was responsible for each situation, but I realized this week how easy it would be to believe I had forgiven simply by forgetting - then realize I had not when circumstances brought it to memory again.

I think we mix up the order way too much. I think forgetting is NOT the higher law; I would rather forgive and not forget than to forget but not forgive.

A Deeper Look at True Repentence

As a society in general, repentance often is assumed on profession of a desire to change, rather than an actual demonstration of change, but that is a terrible standard. Any seasoned liar can cry on command and be convincing; any good con man can explain his actions just as convincingly. Some things are serious enough that we have to take them seriously, no matter how we feel about the person in every other aspect of his life. Sometimes, skepticism has to be the foundation, even though that goes against the ideal for which we strive in all other areas of our lives.

Also, some things are serious enough that repentance needs to include an acceptance of a complete prohibition on the situations that caused the sin in the first place. Those who have abused children should be excluded from any situation where they are alone with children. Period. Professed (or even genuine) repentance notwithstanding. To the end of their mortal lives. No possibility of parole. Period. We can believe their assertions of a changed heart, but we need not create situations where what they did can happen again. Someone who truly has repented sincerely and completely, and who is truly humble, will understand that societal need for certainty and gladly acquiesce. In fact, that is one of the truest fruits of repentance, imo - the humility to change “normal activity” to submit to the best interests of society. If someone fights such a restriction, arguing against it in any way, even by claiming full repentance, I believe we must retain a degree of skepticism and be even more diligent in our duty to protect the innocent.

Some things are serious enough that they need to be categorized outside the norm and treated differently. Jesus himself categorized the abuse of children as so heinous that painful death is better than what will happen to the abusers. That came from the one who said, "Neither do I condemn thee" to a woman caught violating one of the most serious commandments of the time. If he was willing to avoid condemning the adulteress but spoke so severely about child abuse, I think it requires a different approach than other issues.

"Forgiveness" is one thing; ignorance and acceptance of ongoing temptation is quite another; giving the impression of more concern for the perpetrator than the victim(s) is still another. Some things simply are so horrific that they deserve a life sentence, repentance notwithstanding - and anyone who truly is repentant will understand and accept that need. Again, if they fight that restriction, they aren't sufficiently humble to recognize the need for it - which means their heart really hasn't been changed fully - which means there still exists at least a sliver of possibility that it will happen again, given extreme pressures and the perfect storm.

Think of an alcoholic or a drug addict. It is a central, fundamental tenet of rehabilitation that such a person must accept the need for eternal diligence - abstaining from any situation where alcohol or drugs are flowing freely, particularly where there is no support structure to help avoid temptation. That is the manifestation of real repentance - the willingness to do absolutely anything in one's power to avoid any situation where past mistakes are a legitimate possibility. If a drunk or drug addict won't commit to avoiding bars and crack houses, why must we accept their promise that they are the exception - that there simply is no way they will succumb even if they go dancing with the devil?

Again, someone who has repented fully will understand that; someone who has not, will not.

I could pray and ask God this question: "Should I call this man who has sexually abused his daughters to be the Primary Teacher in his daughter's class?" If I did, I would expect one of two answers: 1) total silence for asking such a stupid question; or 2) a solid, spiritual slap upside my head for asking such a stupid question.

Finally, we conflate forgiveness with love WAY too much. They are NOT the same thing, and misunderstanding forgiveness plays a HUGE part of the problem in this type of discussion. Suffice it to say that, unless an abuser has abused me, my wife, my children or someone close to me, forgiveness is not my right. It is left to those whom he has harmed in a real way. "Easy forgiveness" does not help the abuser - and it can be devastating to the victim and those close to the victim, who of necessity will struggle greatly to be able to do what appears to be so easy for us. "Easy forgiveness" of this sort is a result of ignorance and misunderstanding, and it needs to be rooted out of our lives in every iteration. Pure forgiveness is wonderful; easy and indiscriminate forgiveness is abominable.

Love Thine Enemies

Matthew 5: 43-47 says:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?"

I have been struck by the fact that the Mountain Meadows Massacre and to the World Trade Center bombing both happened on this day (Sept. 11) - and by the way we in the Church tend to separate them. I have a fairly easy time praying for those who carried out the Mountain Meadows Massacre, because I share a faith with them and can read of their otherwise righteous efforts and their subsequent lifetimes of grief and suffering over what they did. I can see them as fundamentally good people who made a terrible mistake in a difficult time of confusion and paranoia and impending war.

As we pray for the victims of 9/11/01 and their families, I wonder how many of us think to pray sincerely for those who perpetrated that attack (and their families) - not having the advantage of seeing why they did what they did and not sharing a faith we can use to “understand” their terrible action. I wonder how many of us pray that the casualties among the insurgents and terrorists will be minimized - and that the war will end, even if no one formally wins. I wonder which we value more - loving our enemies and praying for God to protect them or winning, even if means many of them are killed and maimed.

If these two events had to happen, I appreciate that they happened on the same day - if only to remind us that we shouldn’t seek to understand "our own" while simultaneously refusing to seek to understand those who "only" are our own in spirit.

Anger Without a Cause: Dealing with Children

This month's resolution has brought one thing into stark relief:

I do very well avoiding and managing anger in most situations. I have known that for a while, but what I have realized more fully this week is that I don't do such a good job when I am dealing with my children - and especially with my youngest daughter. Actually, I do a good job even then (as I rarely raise my voice without a purpose), but the quickly flaring anger generally is limited to our little twinkie and her older siblings. I wonder why that is.

I try very hard to not impose unrealistic expectations on others - to not judge and to allow for influences beyond my (and often their) control. I generally am very patient with them - and it would be hard to classify me as a hard taskmaster. Yet, on occasion, I find my consternation flaring quickly - and I realized today that it almost always is when I am dealing with something that I have said over and over and over again. That led me to an interesting thought.

I get angry most often when I have failed to ensure that something gets done - when they get caught up in something and don't finish what has been assigned, and I then don't follow through and remind them in the moment. I also get angry when my youngest does or says something that I have told her not to do multiple times. There is no maliciousness or contempt in their actions; they simply haven't completed their assignments - or she hasn't internalized fully the lesson I am trying to teach her. That led me to consider the mercy Heavenly Father extends to me as I fail to complete my assignments - how rarely He "yells at me" or "disciplines me" in some other way while I still am internalizing the lessons He is trying to teach me. It also led me to consider the injunction to forgive seventy times seven - a hyperbolic statement that is translated best as "without measure".

Ironically, I do a very good job when I "have cause to be angry". The times when I struggle the most are when I am angry "without a (just) cause". That had not hit me prior to this week, and it has made me think more deeply about how to avoid this as I relate with my kids.