Comments on: The Burden of Forgiving

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

My first marriage was not a good one. My ex was a compulsive liar, and emotionally abusive. I have forgiven him. But that forgiveness came only with detachment. Forgiveness does not require us to blind ourselves to someone’s true nature. Absent repentence by the offender, forgiveness is best accompanied by a healthy dose of self-preservation.

When we forgive someone, we don’t put a sign on our head, saying “doormat.”

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t accept the BMT for the reasons mentioned. I believe that forgiveness means that our behavior toward that person is motivated by charity, and is not influenced by hate, anger, bitterness or revenge. However, our behavior should still be influenced by what he have learned about that person, and if that person is a serial killer or a pedophile, that knowledge should surely guide our future behavior. Charity does not require us to put ourselves or our loved ones in danger by subjecting them or us to abuse at the hands of somebody who is likely to reoffend.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Gary, I agree with your position but I don’t think there’s any scriptural foundation for it. On the contrary, the doctrinal basis for the BMT seems a lot more secure…

By: inqydesu

inqydesu — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

perhaps the BMT could be used to accomodate both poles. For example, we should treat the person as though they had not wronged us. However, we can use that experience as if it happened to a third person. For example, if a babysitter abused my son I should forgive them and act as though it had not happened. However, I don’t think this means forgetting entirely. I can treat this event as if it happened to another child.
I would not likely entrust my son to someone convicted of molesting / harming another child, so I can use this to protect myself.

This allows the use of the BMT test as a gauge of repentance, while still allowing for protection of ourselves.

Perhaps not the most finely put, but I hope I get my point across.

By: Kaimi

Kaimi — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Ahh, the BMT.

You know, true love is the greatest thing in the world . . . except for a nice BMT — a bacon, mutton, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is lean and the tomato is ripe . . .

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The BMT is a fair place to begin. We are commanded to forgive an endless number of times. As often as we are offended should we forgive. I haven’t had the chance to review scripture on this but shooting from the hip this is what I remember:

As we seek repentance we must forsake the sin, make ammends to those we have wronged and all that good stuff. We are also commanded to forget the sin in our past and move on. Heavenly Father will also forgive and forget.

I don’t know of any specific scripture that commands me to forget the sin of others only my own. I’m sure there is probably one out there somewhere. But this is where I think we can apply this.

If we show a willingness to forget the sins of others as part of our forgiveness then I think we genuinely will, but it may not be until the next world.

From a practical point of view I feel that we can temper our forgiveness with the offender’s repentance. If the offender has not repented, righted the wrongs done, made penance, repaid us the theft several times over as commanded and all, then we can still forgive them but not forget until they show a true repentant heart. Again this may not come to fruition until the next life when our perfected bodies can more easily be controlled by our emotions.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

You see Kaimi, forgiving you would mean forgetting that comment, which I just can’t do. Its smell remaineth.

inqydesu, that’s an interesting idea but I’m not sure the scriptures afford us the ability to swap lenses in that way. Clearly there’s a friction point between forgiveness and responsibilities under a given stewardship, and so we can justify not rehiring the child molester under that view. But in terms of personal forgiveness: let’s say you’ve been abused, personally. The BMT suggests that to show true forgiveness, you can/should leave yourself open to further abuse. What scriptures or doctrine do we have that can save us from this evil?

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Steve: I assume that the scriptural foundation you have in mind consists of passages such as “turn the other cheek” and go the second mile. I don’t think pithy statements such as these and others that we find in scripture should be interpreted as codes of conduct to be applied in all situations. These statements don’t mean much in a vacuum because correct conduct is always determined by the facts of each particular case. I think that these kinds of statements are better interpreted as expressions of the principle that we should be patient and long suffering but are not to be taken too literally. I don’t really believe that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get to heaven, but this statement serves an important purpose in teaching the importance of humility. I put “turn the other cheek” into a similar category.

By: danithew

danithew — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’m not really sure there are many scriptures or any scriptures that actually instruct a person to forget something that has been done wrong to them. Forgiveness is mentioned often but not forgetting. The emphasis in the scriptures seems to be on remembering things. I’m trying to think of any scripture that actually instructs forgetting.

We do have a scripture where God says he will “remember them no more” (“them” referring to sins repented of). But I don’t think that means an omniscient God truly loses knowledge of a sin that was committed in the past. I would guess this simply means that God would no longer remind the sinner of the former sin or mention the former sin to the sinner.

There is a story where Spencer W. Kimball relates that he was approached by a woman who had confessed sins to him … and she was gladdened that he had forgotten what they had discussed. I believe that story is in the book “Miracle of Forgiveness.”

But it seems to me that when a person suffers the results of someone else’s serious transgression, that forgetting would be foolishness.

In fact there is at least one scripture, in reference to adultery, that seems to suggest that the first infraction should not be forgotten, in case it is repeated. The first infraction will be forgiven (but not forgotten) but further infractions will not be forgiven. At least that’s how I understand it:

Doctrine and Covenants 42:25-26
25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;
26 But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

Two strikes you’re out? That’s what it sounds like to me. I would imagine with other similarly vicious offenses that the instruction would be similar.

So obviously there are cases where the 70×7 instruction does not hold.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Interesting that our institutional level of forgiveness should differ from our personal level. I wonder what the reasons are for that differentiation — I certainly wouldn’t take from it a lesson that we should have personal ‘two strike’ policies.