Does the Church have a doctrine of forgiveness? There is certainly a lot of talk about it. It’s notoriously difficult, of course, to nail down LDS doctrine on any subject. Maybe forgiveness is more of a principle than a doctrine, a principle that also involves ethics and expectations and accountability. It’s complicated.
Let’s look at the most recent LDS pronouncement on forgiveness, delivered by S. Mark Palmer at the First Presidency Christmas Devotional about ten days ago. He’s one of the seven presidents of the Seventy. There is no transcript, so I’m transcribing from the video starting at about time stamp 3:45 where he talks about “the gift of forgiveness”:
When we fail to forgive others their sins against us, the greater sin is ours. As we freely and frankly forgive others, we become free from the poison of bitterness, judgment, or vengeance.
He then recounts the story of a friend whose father was tortured and killed by the government when the friend was just two years old. Elder Palmer recounted how that friend had feelings of bitterness and hatred while growing up, but later found and joined the LDS Church. As a result, “the gospel helped me understand that I should forgive the police officers for their crimes, and that my joy and spiritual progress depended on it.” This was held out as an “example of giving the gift of forgiveness.”
Wow, there are a lot of things wrong with this whole presentation. First … at a Christmas devotional? That’s the message you are giving? “Hey, all you victims of violence and sexual assault, the greater sin is on your head if you have not fully and frankly forgiven your aggressors, whether or not they deserve it and whether or not they were ever held accountable.” And NOT A SINGLE WORD addressed to those who might have perpetrated violence on others that maybe they should make amends and face accountability for their actions. Perps get a free pass, apparently. It’s the victims he is giving a hard time to.
Second, it’s wrong to claim that a victim has a DUTY to forgive someone who harmed them. It’s the perpetrator that has a primary duty to repent, change their ways, repair the damage if possible, and then ask for forgiveness. The victim then has a possible response (NOT a duty) in which they may or may not bring themselves to forgive the perpetrator. I suspect that behind this whole discussion, the real message of the story is this: You should freely forgive any wrong committed against you by an institution (like say the LDS Church) or its officers (like say a GA or a bishop). This takes the Oaks Doctrine (we don’t apologize) a step further: Not only does the Church not apologize, but any victim who suffered must forgive the Church of the GA or the bishop for having harmed them. Maybe this is another example of the Trumpification of the Church. Nothing gets Trump more upset than being held accountable for his wrongful actions. In Palmer’s talk, even with the example of a horrendous crime, not a word about accountability.
Third, let’s think about how this teaching will be applied. It will encourage local LDS leaders who are counseling with victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse to just skip any sense of accountability or justice and move right to the victim’s duty to forgive the perpetrator. Especially if the perp is a priesthood holder or say a young man who might serve a mission soon. I know there are some local leaders who take a different approach, defending victims and pressing the perps to hold themselves accountable. But they are swimming against the LDS tide. I can imagine Kirton McConkie adding a new line to their script for responding to bishops who call for guidance when reporting issues arise: “You also might consider giving the victim a copy of Elder Palmer’s Christmas talk and emphasizing their duty to forgive rather than make a report to law enforcement.”
I’m trying to think of a more misguided and potentially damaging message that I have heard from an LDS GA and I don’t think I can. This goes right to the top of the list. If there’s a victim you know of who heard Elder Palmer’s misguided remarks at the Christmas devotional, maybe you should give them a call and do some rehab work: “It’s not your fault. You should not feel guilty because of the wrongful actions of those who hurt you or a family member. They should be held accountable and maybe they will be at some point. Maybe someday circumstances will make it possible for you to forgive them if they deserve it, but that’s not a burden you should carry — that’s their burden, not yours. Cross that emotional bridge when you come to it, not now.”
If you missed the Christmas devotional, go listen to Elder Palmer’s remarks, with special attention to the two minutes starting at 3:10. Then tell me what you think.
Wheat & Tares 
Even as a full-on TBM I never agreed with the premise that a victim holds the greater sin if he or she does not forgive his/her offender. Really? Assad’s victims in Syria better get their act together.
That talk was just the basic forgiveness talk from the scriptures you might generally hear at church. You are correct that some understandings of this concept can be dangerously misused.
In my opinion forgiveness is valuable for the victim when it is clearly differentiated from reconciliation. For instance, if your relative sexually abused your child you could pray and be relieved and made free and peaceful from your angry feelings towards your relative.
Reconciliation is another matter that is not commanded. In fact, we are commanded to protect and care for our children. With that in mind I would see it as my duty to press charges against this relative if possible in order to protect other children. I wouldn’t allow my relative in my child’s presence or around other children I am responsible for. I wouldn’t keep their status as a child molester secret.
I would see these actions as beneficial to my child molester relative, and actually part of my forgiveness and care for him. It must be so hard for him to be subject to such temptations. I would help protect him from these temptations if possible by helping put him in jail and getting him on the registry as a sexual offender.
My own peace and emotional health and those of my victimized child would remain important to protect. I imagine we would take steps to avoid any interaction with this relative. Forgiveness is part of the emotional health. There would be no need to hate my relative or think angry thoughts constantly. I would leave such anger and judgement for God to handle and this would increase my peace.
I like the concept of forgiveness because it teaches that we leave the judgement of others to God. I get tired of people thinking they know what’s going on with others when they have no clue about another person’s life. I would add we shouldn’t be judging others on whether they forgive or not, and if we are angry at them for not forgiving it is our obligation to forgive them and go on with our lives instead of fixating on another person as a sinner.
Every time forgiveness is taught, I believe the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation should be taught as well. Otherwise it can become a dangerous rather than helpful topic.
These concepts could be applied towards the church as an institution as well. If you find attendance at church to be dangerous towards your peace and forgiveness of the ways you have been injured, perhaps reconciliation is not possible at this time. Finding the peace of mind that comes with forgiveness and moving on with your life instead is what is commanded. I personally believe talking about what happened and considering every facet if it can be part of the process of finding peace of mind forgiveness for others.
Full reconciliation requires a trustworthy partner to work out a relationship with. Part of that would be transparency, accountability, and clear communication. If that doesn’t exist a full reconciliation isn’t possible, or commanded.
I really appreciate what lws329 said above and maybe, just maybe, that is the key to finding some sort of redeeming personal spiritual value in the message of forgiveness as presently taught in the LDS church. I find it a good attempt to create some synthesis between what seems to be some really terrible implications.
Mostly I agree, however, with Dave B’s overall point: this version of forgiveness his harmful. I Think it is important to point out the doctrinal underpinning behind Elder Palmer’s Christmas devotional message, which is found in the Doctrine and Covenenants Section 64:
When I was on my mission in Montreal, Canada, I was 20 years-old and we were teaching a woman who had fled an abusive relationship. She had 2 young twins and was an American citizen who was living with an older French Canadian man. 20-year-old me knew nothing about abuse, or the horrific nature of it. And yet I remember feeling like we should teach a lesson about forgiveness, and we used this scripture from the D&C. I think we did enormous harm to the woman by focusing on her need to forgive her abuser and framing it in a way that if she did not do so, she was guilty of a greater sin that the actual abuse she suffered.
My take-away in this ordeal is that often times people are just passing down tradition and problematic notions of ethics, morality, and perhaps even committing a form of spiritual abuse without really questioning their priors.
Amen to the comments above.
We really shouldn’t be surprised at clumsy, potentially harmful messages like this from Church leaders. No one, it seems, rises to those levels of leadership in the LDS Church without a certain amount of tone-deafness, hubris, willful ignorance and privilege-induced blindness. It’s practically a prerequisite, and typically gets worse as one climbs higher up the ladder.
Amen to the comments above.
We really shouldn’t be surprised at clumsy, potentially harmful messages like this from Church leaders. No one, it seems, rises to those levels of leadership in the LDS Church without a certain amount of tone-deafness, hubris, willful ignorance and privilege-induced blindness. It’s practically a prerequisite, and typically gets worse as one climbs higher up the ladder.
Forgiveness should never mean that you don’t pursue (or let the state pursue) accountability. If you hurt my child, I can forgive you in my heart, meaning that I try to rid myself of my hate and anger against you, but I can still support the state in its prosecution against you. I can still want you to be accountable before the law. What forgiveness here entails is not your escape from punishment; rather, I won’t harbor hard feelings in my heart and let them control my life. If my husband beats me with a stick, I can kick him out and file a police report, and I can forgive him, meaning that I don’t hate him in my heart, but I don’t have to allow him to come back to live with me. Forgiveness does not trump accountability. At least that’s how I see it. I can forgive you fully, meaning that I harbor no ill will, and still give full, complete, and damning testimony against you in a court of law.
I think that we mis-read and mis-teach forgiveness when we say that it means that the offender gets off scot free. I can’t control what the state does, but the state has a vested interest in punishing people for criminal acts, and as a citizen I should support the state in its legitimate efforts.
I think this is an issue of misreading scripture. And it is unfortunate that so many of our leaders are not better educated in how they read scripture. Very often, literal and absolutist interpretations can lead to absurd conclusions. If one is more thoughtful about how scriptural communication is a function of context, language, history, and so on, one would be more likely to read this “remaineth in him the greater sin” business as a rhetorical device than an absolute and literal doctrine.
Quick thought: People (and institutions) are much better at advocating for others to practice forgiveness if they fully practice it themselves.
Try rephrasing church teachings on forgiveness to include ‘apostates’ as the recipients of that forgiveness and you get a better idea of what leaders preach versus what they practice:
“When we fail to forgive [apostates] of their sins against us, the greater sin is ours. As we freely and frankly forgive [apostates] we become free from the poison of bitterness, judgment, or vengeance.“
Now replace “apostates” with any other proverbial church lepers: gay married couples, fully transitioned transfolk, impoverished non-tithers, etc.
I am extremely fortunate. I, nor anyone in my family (and even my extended family that I am aware of), has ever experienced sexual or physical or probably even severe verbal or emotional abuse. As a result, I am completely oblivious to the pain and suffering experienced by those who have been subjecting to these things. I appreciate those here and in other places who have shared and helped me understand a bit better how those situations are different. I fear that if it weren’t for hearing those experiences, I might foolishly make blanket statements like Elder Palmer did here.
So, what about the experiences we’ve all had when people have wronged us, but it hasn’t come close to be classified as abuse? Some unkind or insensitive remarks here or some relatively minor offense there? I personally have experienced a lot of peace by just forgiving (often silently, in my heart) and reconciling in many of these types of situations. I have also observed myself at times as well as other people very close to me go through years and years of anger and hate over what seems to me to be a relatively minor offense (no one would classify it as abuse). It seems like they would have been so much happier if they had just forgiven, whether they fully reconciled with the offender or not, although in many cases, they probably would be happier if they had fully reconciled.
I guess I’m saying that I’ve found the teaching to forgive and to try to reconcile to generally be a positive thing in my life from my privileged position of never having experienced any real form of serious abuse. I very much appreciate people making me aware of how forgiveness and reconciliation are extremely difficult and even ill-advised in more serious situations. I think what lws329 said about forgiving people who have done terrible things to us can be freeing while reconcilation with those people may be a awful idea.
On a slightly different note, I happen to recently have been wondering what feelings I would have had towards certain Church leaders/prophets in certain situations:
1. If I had been close to retirement age and had lost my life savings in the Kirtland Safety Society, I’m not sure that I would have ever forgiven Joseph Smith for making the promises he did about his “bank” as I scraped through my final years in abject poverty.
2. If Brigham Young had polygamously married one of my daughters, I’m not sure that I ever could have forgiven him.
3. If I were a black member of the Church prior to 1978, I’m no sure I could forgive any of the prophets prior to Spencer Kimball.
4. If I were a woman who wanted to pursue a career but didn’t because of Ezra Benson’s call for women to stay home, I’m not sure I could ever forgive him, especially when I saw that the Church completely reversed itself on this issue in my lifetime. There are a few women in my life whose lives were very negatively affected by following Benson’s counsel, so I do still harbor bad feelings towards him.
5. If I were gay, I’m not sure I could forgive Dallin Oaks and other past and current Church leaders for not allowing monogamous gay members to participate in the Church. Actually, I know I can’t do this one even though I’m not gay. I currently harbor a lot of anger towards Church leaders for their words and actions towards LGBTQ individuals. I really can’t forgive them now because they are still committing the same sin.
6. If I were Eugene England and had been treated the way I had by Bruce McConkie and even eventually forced out of BYU despite being a top-notch English professor, I’m not sure I ever could have forgiven McConkie and the others who treated me this way.
Apologizing would help a lot of Church members forgive the Church and its leaders for their past sins, but unfortunately, the need to maintain a facade of prophetic infallibility seems to override Christ’s call to acknowledge sins and ask for forgiveness.
When the church asks for forgiveness for polygamy (which it is now teaching children was a hard thing God forced the men and women of the church to live by, but which has over time proven to have provided many blessings to those who obeyed), Prop 8, the priesthood ban and other troubling “policies” aimed at POC, the cruelty to non-cis individuals currently being practiced, I might consider its claims regarding forgiveness. However, it just seems like a ploy to protect the church patriarchy. We’re not bad for doing it, you’re bad for being damaged by it!
I want to add that reconciliation is specified clearly in D&C 42:88
“And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled. “
Verses on this topic continue on with specific directions for specific situations to verse 92. Clearly reconciliation is very different from forgiveness, even in the scriptures.
For reconciliation to occur there must be clear communication between the parties. Sitting in silence may sometimes be correct when a person chooses to forgive, but have no further contact. But being silent does nothing to resolve the problems at hand. Reconciliation requires not only speaking up, but for the other party to listen, understand and acknowledge the error or wound that has occurred.
This isn’t occuring in the current church structure, between top leaders and church membership. There is no mechanism set up for honoring the negative experiences of members, except for contacting bishops and stake presidents, who cannot really speak freely for leadership, but must follow the hand book. Excommunications create an atmosphere of fear and silence, which is contrary to the necessities of reconciliation.
I could write a book on this subject, from personal and professional experience working with victims of domestic violence, rape, and child sexual abuse about how the church revictimizes female victims of real harm. With my clients, I was constrained by professional ethics from blasting a person’s religion as part of the problem, so I couldn’t advise my LDS clients that the church’s teachings on forgiveness are for the mediocre problems church leaders have been through, such as someone unknowingly says something that hurts their itty bitty feelings and they *choose* to never get over it. The church’s teachings on forgiveness are not for ongoing purposeful repeated violence. But the church really adds to the trauma by misunderstanding that protecting oneself and others from male violence is NOT lack of forgiveness. You can forgive from far far away, but the church encourages battered wives to forgive over and over, never really believing that someday the guy she is forgiving will kill her.
Now church leader will say you should forgive 70×70 just like the Bible recommends, but they would swear they don’t mean for the little girl getting raped that she should just keep forgiving and keep getting raped and never report or protect her younger siblings and of *course a wife should not forgiven the husband raping the little girls 70×70 without ever reporting, but they of course never teach that there are any exceptions to this blanket rule to forgive. Oaks tells us that of course there are exceptions, but doesn’t even name any exceptions to the church’s general advice. Meanwhile everyone just keeps on pretending that there are no exceptions. From the women I have talked to, it takes women until they are 40 to 50 to realize that maybe they were an exception to the general rule about mothers should always be home with their kids and not work outside the home. So, how do we expect a child or young woman to know when there are exceptions to the rule that the person who won’t forgive is guilty of the greater sin.
I agree with lws329’s distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, and that the scriptures support what she’s said. But the Church doesn’t teach that, or barely teaches it. I did not listen to Palmer’s devotional, but I’ll wager that he didn’t make any distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation.
There is also healing that the church doesn’t seem to realize is necessary. Really, the healing has to come before the forgiveness. Otherwise the anger and hatred get turned toward oneself. You see this a lot where victims blame themselves but claim to have forgiven. Chances are they were forced into pretending forgiveness because they had to live with their abuser or were pressured by relatives or religion to forgive before they were able to heal enough to ever realize that what happened was not their fault.
When I was counseling rape victims, I had so many good Mormon women who were raped ten to thirty years ago and had been pressured into pretending it never happened, even if it was recognized as rape they were given no support or help healing. Others had been forced into repenting because their bishop could not recognize rape when it was crying in his office, that “I told him no.” Having no support for healing, they were forced to go on with life with a terrible injury. So, they did the only thing they could to survive and blamed themselves. “If only I hadn’t tried to go out with the population boy…” “I didn’t try hard enough to stop him.” “I knew I shouldn’t have gone to the store at night, but the baby needed diapers.”
if they try to talk to their bishops about the self blame, he sees lack of forgiveness alright. But rather than seeing self blame as lack of healing and forced false forgiveness, they put more pressure on her to repent or to forgive. This just digs her deeper into self blame. It delays real forgiveness because it is sidestepping the rapist’s accountability. She is the only one being held accountable. So, she cannot forgive the offender because she is not allowed to hold him accountable.
Personally, the church in the people at LDS Family Services pressured me into reconciliation WAY too soon. It was not determined by my needs at all, only that my father’s therapist was moving to another job. It set me way back when all I could do was sit quietly and not even begin to hold my father accountable. So even professionals fail to see the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation, professionals who should know better. But professional counselors are not trained in the religious aspects of things like forgiveness compared to reconciliation. So, the counselors got way ahead of where things should have been. And I never did really reconcile to my father. He was laying on his death bed and once again I was pressured to try for???? I don’t know what family was trying to shove me into. I really only found peace when he was dead and nobody pushes me to forgive=have a loving relationship with an a**hat. I just could not pretend nothing ever happened and that was what my family seemed to want. That is NOT forgiveness but denial.
Anna,
I really think the term forgive and forget, if you think in all or nothing terms, isn’t reasonable. Sure, enjoy the day. Drive forward and forget about what’s behind you. But be sure to glance in your rear view mirror at what is behind from time to time. It informed where you are going.
I can’t imagine how you could reconcile with your Dad. He was dangerous for you. Even if by some miracle he changed, there is no way for you to know that for sure. It sounds like the pressure to reconcile was all for your family’s pleasure of imagining things were different than they could be. Your life doesn’t exist for their comfort or pleasure.
I think I’ll stick with Jesus on this one. Forgiveness is a good idea.
Anger is an important emotion. Evolutionary psychology has found anger to be crucial to motivating us to stand up for ourselves, work toward justice, and hold boundaries necessary to ensure our safety and that of those we love. In a world where there was no anger there would be no progress in the direction of justice. The development of anger was an important evolutionary step.
If forgiveness means letting go of anger, it may, if encouraged prematurely, subject an abuse survivor to continued and even increased vulnerability to further abuse.
While it may in some situations be beneficial to an abuse survivor to forgive, trauma healing experts do not suggest that forgiveness is necessary to heal from trauma.
Abuse is about power and control. Finding ways to give power and control back to the survivor of abuse is crucial to that person’s healing. Demanding forgiveness is something no one has the right to ask of an abuse survivor—it is just another attempt to take power and control from the person who has had trauma inflicted upon her and can be profoundly damaging.
From Betrayal Trauma Recovery website btr dot org:
“Forgiveness is a concept often used to silence victims and give abusers a quick slap on the wrist without any real consequences for their behavior. No wonder it’s triggering to even hear it, let alone try to practice it.
The bottom line: stop telling victims to forgive their abusers – it’s only causing more harm.”
What if instead we focused our time to discuss the scriptural injunction to mourn with those who mourn. The speech by Ben Ogles at BYU is worth listening to.
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ben-ogles/agency-accountability-atonement-jesus-christ/
lws329, no, you do not forgive and forget big things. The act of forgiveness doesn’t cause the forgiver amnesia. In the book Forgive and Forget, the author (I forget his name and am too lazy to look it up) says that forgetting is a myth. I will add it is most likely a myth invented by the very people who would benefit from their hurting others being forgotten. With little things you may forget, but with bigger things, well, it is just too big and traumatic to forget. You can forgive and remember.
You don’t forget things that are traumatic. I remember detail from a trauma when I was still in diapers, no body’s fault and nothing to forgive, but I remember tiny details of the direction I was walking, everything I was wearing, hurting feet and sunburn. I wasn’t three yet. But that memory is still strong, because traumatic memory is recorded differently in the brain than other memories. It is to keep us safe, because if we forget about life and death situations, the next one might kill us when some detail from the first experience could save our lives, so, no, we don’t forget trauma. We might block the memory, but we don’t forget. So, the people who want it forgotten want that for their own convenience.
I think some times when I am feeling cynical that Christianity was invented by the sinners. They are the ones who benefit most from the atonement. They are the ones who benefit most from being forgiven, even and especially if their victims are forced into forgiving and never allowed to heal by the religious mandate to forgive.
I really think we need to split the concept into several parts. As mentioned by several people here, reconciliation gets confused with forgiveness. I used to tell my clients that sometimes the best way to forgive is to know you will never see them again. I would of course let them decide if that applied to them, because sometimes people just need permission to protect themselves by never seeing someone again.
Forgiveness also needs to be separated from healing. You can forgive the drunk driver that put you in a wheel chair, but that does not mean you won’t still need the wheelchair. Abuse causes psychological and emotional injuries and forgiveness does not heal those injuries. Healing is a totally different matter than staying angry at the person who caused the injury.
And we need to teach that sometimes it is fine to stay angry. I had clients who were afraid to let go of the anger because then they would let their guard down and get hurt again. I had to maintain a certain level of anger to remember to keep my children away from ever being alone with him. Anger is motivating and is a good and necessary emotion. It can also be exhausting, so sometimes, if you are safe, it is good to let it go.
each survivor of abuse knows their situation and should be allowed what ever option they feel is best without one being labeled as a worse sin than what happened to them.
i think we have two problems that are manifesting here
One, we teach in general platitudes and, in so doing, we avoid reality. A lesson on forgiveness in general platitudes sounds nice to some but is problematic to others for reasons such as raised in this thread. But church members have to live our lives in real terms, in sometimes messy or troubling terms, and we have no lessons or conversations to help with reality with its messiness and trouble. Our gospel messages and lessons (never conversations) are figuratively shrink-wrapped, saccharine-sweet, neat and pretty, academic, and so forth, with no real connection to the lived lives of fellow Saints.
Two, compounding the above is our refusal to have conversations — instead, we have talks, always one-way talks. But the gospel requires conversations that are tied to reality. And why can we not have conversations? Because we are stuck on the notion that revelation always flows downhill, that superiors in the hierarchy have it and common members don’t, and so forth. But that is not how God works, or how revelation works. We need conversations about real circumstances that are faced among us, and we need the freedom for a common member to push back on a superior in the hierarchy — we need to get away from lessons on obey, pray, and pay and get to real ministering — in that real ministering, with give-and-take, learning will occur and revelation can happen, and both parties (the minister and the ministered unto) can leave better than before. Our current practice of one-way talks, where a superior officer dictates to a subordinate member while staying emotionally disconnected, has to give way to meaningful engagement and conversation — and then revelation can come.
And key to that is getting away from the notion that revelation always flows downhill, that superiors in the hierarchy have it and common members don’t, and so forth. If President ___ or Elder ___ offers counsel about a situation I am facing, he simply cannot go beyond the shrink-wrapped, saccharine-sweet, neat and pretty, academic, and so forth UNLESS he also gives me the privilege of demurring, adapting, even disagreeing, which he is unwilling to do in our current culture. Because President ___ or Elder ___ wants to deliver a one-way talk, where he expounds and where the listener obeys, prays, and pays, and because he is holy and the listener is not, his talk will be shrink-wrapped, saccharine-sweet, neat and pretty, academic, and so forth — in other words, almost useless in the real world that we live in.
Two follow-on thoughts:
I see general conference talks as old men, good men, general church officers with some sisters scattered in, offering advice to fellow Saints — their own advice and help, offered with sincerity. I do not see general conference speakers as channeling the Lord and delivering pure revelation. I think a wider acceptance of this viewpoint will be beneficial in our church culture.
Even if general conference talks have to be one-way because of the medium, can’t we have meaningful conversations about real situations in our elders quorums? If someone does offer some advice for a situation, especially a higher-ranking member, will we allow another member to say, “Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts, but that doesn’t really work for me”?
Thanks to commenters above, most especially for the thought that talks should be qualified with “What I’m about to say might not work for you” and for the thought that real sanctification, really coming to know God, comes from the messiness of ministering to the dying, the aged, the infirm, and so forth, far more than temple attendance and scripture reading (this ought ye to have done, not leaving the other undone).
ji,
And so we circle back to the reality that only a certain type of person serves as a leader in the church. The type of person who can be selected is innocent and ignorant of what it means to be a woman, or other vulnerable person, subject to the needs and decisions of others, financially and physically. The type of person who can serve as a Bishop, SP or other higher leader, has a wife who does all the difficult parts of caring for others while they work, and attend meetings at church. Likely if the burdens at home are very much they won’t be called, or will be released and someone else with fewer burdens will be called.
If they are an empathetic sort and seriously try to listen they may learn some piece of it. But really , they mostly are in no position to understand.
I was traumatized in my bishop’s office once with a close friend, a member of the bishopric present. I was already afraid to be alone with that bishop because of his anger with me in a previous meeting when I stood up for the needs of my special needs child who was afraid of another child in Primary. The bishop knew this and asked my friend in the bishopric to be present, and my husband, before he confronted me about something else (a problem that involved my inability as an organist, to play whatever the chorister wanted on short notice). My husband was so upset by the way the bishop talked to me on that occasion, he blacked it out and couldn’t and didn’t say anything or remember the whole interaction later.
My close friend in the bishopric saw how the bishop behaved towards me as wrong and problem. His presence didn’t help at all; he didn’t say anything, but at least he could remember it . However, he believed I could just forgive the bishop and go in his office again the next week. Well, reality was, I HAD forgiven the bishop already in that I didn’t hold anything against him for his total lack of skill and poor way of treating me. However, that did not mean it was reasonable for me to EVER enter his office and sit across from him again. Forgiving him didn’t mean I wasn’t damaged by the interaction. Or maybe it wasn’t damage. Maybe I learned something.
The authority of a bishop amplifies the force of the things he says to a person. Our church culture demands submission to that authority. I am incapable of ever submitting in that way again at any time in the future. At first I hoped to heal from this problem. At first I couldn’t even meet with my male doctor without feeling afraid. I have healed from those pieces of it. Ten years later I am friends with this former bishop and we talk in the hallway from time to time.
I no longer submit myself to a bishop’s authority. I no longer think it’s right or necessary for me to submit in that way; however, if I did think it was necessary, I still couldn’t do it again. It made me afraid of all men in authority for a few years. I am not interested in feeling that way again.
The problem I just described is so so minor compared to what some women have suffered as little children in much more vulnerable circumstances. Yet leaders still cannot understand what it means to have no authority of your own, and to be vulnerable to the authority of leaders in the church. They imagine we can simply forgive and it’s over.
Forgiving doesn’t erase what we learn by our interactions with men. We learn we are not safe in a world dominated by men. We learn to protect ourselves.
lws329, May God bless you, and me, and all of us, as we carry on.
I feel your situation as an organist — if you can’t play a particular hymn, then you can’t play it even if the ward music leader selected it — that’s a fact — and your skill (or comfort) outweighs or countermands the music leader’s “inspiration” in making selections. It is a very small-minded bishop who thinks otherwise, and yes, they certainly exist (and maybe even abound) — I have also dealt with such.
Thank you lws for your numerous contributions to this important conversation. I 100% agree with the sentiment that any conversation about forgiveness should also include a distinction with reconciliation. Pete Walker says this regarding forgiveness; “Premature forgiveness mimics the defenses of denial and repression. It keeps unprocessed feelings of anger and hurt… out of awareness. real forgiveness is… almost always a byproduct of effective grieving”. Our traditional compensatory idea about Atonement and forgiveness begins to fall apart when we realize that some things are not able to be restored, they are simply lost forever.
This reality suggests to me that forgiveness is not an attempt to restore what has been taken, although restitution may be a key part of reconciliation on the part of the perpetrator, it nevertheless is not necessarily waited upon by the victim to forgive. This is to make the same strong distinction that “lws” made regarding the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. Forgiveness, to me, is more a way to move forward, in the midst of the loss, to grieve it necessarily, and expel the haunting effects of vengeance. Forgiveness is the process of learning how to live with loss. I personally find great value in seeing the concept of Atonement as synonymous with reconciliation. Forgiveness free’s the victim from surrendering all their sense of wholeness to the one who harmed them, but Atonement (reconciliation) is only made possible when forgiveness is met by restitution, justice, remorse and a restoration of trust.
Forgiveness is the balm needed to survive and find meaning against an entropic reality. Literally, my life and everything around me is passing away. I will never get yesterday back, it’s gone forever. I will never have my 14-year-old daughter back, or those years of separation from a brother, whom I love, but held in contempt. Withholding forgiveness is like taking a poison and waiting for the other person to die. I am continually learning how to live with loss, all the while understanding that reconciliation or Atonement are a two-person job, where healing is only made possible through the process of restoring the trust that has been fractured.
I wonder if it is enough to hope to forgive? Perhaps just turning our face in that direction can help us heal. And my prayer might be this, may I be able to forgive that SOB…May I be kind to everyone I meet, and keep me from meeting that SOB, or if I must meet that SOB let me try to be my better self, and if I fail, may I turn my face to the sun and try to do better tomorrow.
vajra2, you raise an excellent question, and thanks. I don’t know that one must forgive immediately, because it does take time to process these things. Like with anger, sometimes things make us mad, and maybe we need a little time and space to get over the anger. But eventually we will need to forgive, as I understand the scriptures. Let me tell a story. Imagine that you are extremely upset with someone, someone who has hurt you badly and did so intentionally, and he isn’t sorry one bit. You’re angry and hurt, but you’re separated and you never see him again. He dies, and eventually die. You don’t see each other in the Millennium. Then you’re brought to that great bus station in the sky where everyone heading to the celestial glory is getting on the busses to take them to heaven, golden ticket in hand. You’re happy because you’re headed to live with the Lord, and you’ve been forgiven of your sins, and you’re all good. You look ahead of you and you see the person who hurt you getting on the same bus, whom you haven’t seen or even thought about for many years, and he’s also holding a golden ticket. Upon seeing him, you remember all your hurt and you also remember your hate and anger, and your desire to him suffer is rekindled. You will a choice. You can get on the bus, not worry about him, and be grateful that you’re on the bus. Or you can refuse to get on the bus, you can start to holler and yell, and you can reject God’s salvation because God can’t be just if he’s letting your nemesis on the bus. I think that we need to forgive before we arrive at that point. Not necessarily right now, or within 24 hours or 30 days of the offense, but at some point we need to forgive, because ultimately forgiveness is what we will want God to give us. In the short term, a desire to forgive, or a willingness to forgive, might be good enough, because it points us in the right direction and that is a start. We can’t run faster than we have strength, and forgiving sometimes requires great strength.
Georgis – you have given a modern translated version of the parable of the Prodigal son. That parable has sadly given very little attention to the problems within the Elder Son. He’s the “good” one, and his willingness to remain home only has meaning so long as it gives him a leg up. As soon as his profligate brother shows up on the bus, his good works reveal the hostility and resentment they have created towards any who have not paid the “exact” same price as him. The truth is, he resents, as I might or human nature does, that he could have sewn his wild oats as well and still received the fatted calf. The elder son does not really believe that “how” he has lived his life is Blessed, he believes it was only as good as what he got that someone else didn’t. Jesus makes clear through this parable that this self-righteous attitude is no less toxic than complete rebellion. It’s not a comparison of which is worse, it’s simply a warning that we can be lost to disfunction or pride. The real risk of the religious enterprise is it’s often a way, as Richard Rohr says, for people to hide from God.
I was watching the series The Pacific (companion series to Band of Brothers), and there is an incident in which Private Leckie takes a box with a pistol that he finds in a Japanese encampment they find. Later his box is missing, and he finds it in the Sargent’s tent. Sgt. Larkin claims that the box is needed to store important papers, which Leckie sees is a lie as it’s filled with Larkin’s personal effects. Larkin deliberately reminds him of his lower rank and tells him to get out of his tent. Leckie defiantly says, “I’m not in your tent” and we see him standing outside in the rain, looking in at the Sgt. Later, Leckie fantasizes about killing the Sargent, but eventually just takes his box back. Since it’s not official military property anyway, the Sargent can’t report it stolen. Instead he gets Leckie booted from the unit. How does this relate to forgiveness? Should Leckie have just forgiven the theft? It seems to me that the Church’s advice is to just shut up and take it, and whether you forgive or not, the one in power is going to have the last laugh. Sometimes it seems that saying “forgive & forget” just means to go away and quit rocking the boat, like Larkin saying “get out of my tent” when Leckie is standing out in the rain, with no power to get back what was taken from him, and being given no respect in the process.
I don’t think the parable of the prodigal son is a condemnation of the elder brother. To insult him and judge him is to behave in the way you are condemning. Nor do I think he was “lost to disfunction or pride.” After all it is the prodigal son who was “lost and now is found.” Don’t forget the father says to the son, who is not flinging rocks at his brother nor showing him disrespect, but simply remaining outside, “Son, you are with me always, and everything I have is yours…” The elder brother was a human being who like all of us wouldn’t mind receiving a fatted calf, or even a nice lasagna to share with our friends. The father loves them both and does not require the prodigal son to be a servant nor expect the elder to be perfect. I think the father is an example of absolute unconditional love for both sons. But he does not expect any of us to be perfect, although in another verse we are told to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect. And what is the perfection we are to seek? Not obedience, but love for God is love.
vajraz – I agree that the parable is not a condemnation of the Elder son, however, in the context of the question that precedes Jesus telling the 3 parables, first; the parable of the lost sheep; Second, the parable of the lost coin; and third, the parable of the prodigal son, he is certainly laying a critique against those who think themselves the “holy people”. Luke 15 begins with the following: Tax collectors and other notorious sinners often came to listen to Jesus teach. This made the Pharisees and teachers of religious law complain that he was associating with such sinful people—even eating with them!
So, Jesus told them this story:
The ardent law keepers and religious elite were using the law as a tool to define their enemies, and to divide people into those who deserve God’s care and those who do not. In short, the law was a self-serving mechanism, a way to get God to love them (more), instead of a way “to love”. We as modern readers come to the text prejudiced by titles given to stories that did not exist in the original manuscripts. Some scholarship has suggested that this story was originally titled the “parable of the two lost sons.” I would suggest neither is really the point of the parable, but it would be more accurate to summarize it as “the unbelievable loving nature of the Father”.
Most agree that the elder son, in the context of the chapter, is an archetype for the “Pharisees”. Jesus is repeatedly associating with the people they believe are “unclean”, even sharing a table with them.
The problem in the story is that both sons have a false belief about the nature of God. The younger believes he doesn’t deserve the fathers love, he must earn it back, and the elder son believes he “does” deserve his fathers love, because he “has” earned it. Indeed the elder son is lost because he holds his brother in contempt and disagrees with his fathers open arms. He finds himself “outside” the house and the party, trapped in his hostility towards his brother and resentment towards his father.
The older brother is angry and refuses to go in. The father comes out and begs him to go in. “All these years I’ve slaved for you and never disobeyed you. You have never given me a goat to enjoy with my friends. Yet when this son of yours comes back after wasting your money on prostitutes, you celebrate by killing the fattened calf.” Humanity can be lost in bad living; most of us recognize this as sin.
But what Jesus is saying here, is that you can also be lost in good living. The older brother represents those who are lost in religion. They are performance-driven, high achievers, proud individuals. They are working hard, trying to earn what can only be received by grace.
Both sons are after the father’s things, but not after his heart!
Dallin H Oaks gave a talk on October 18, 2018 titled “The paradox of Love and Law” where he said the following regarding the parable of the prodigal son.
Despite their many gifts that demonstrate divine love, the Father and the Son insist on our keeping Their commandments in our personal lives. The teachings and example of the Son demonstrate how both love and law are expected to be balanced in mortal life. Thus, when we read the Savior’s parable of the prodigal son, we should not fail to note that while the father showed great love for the returning prodigal, it was to the faithful elder son that he said, “Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.” [20] This teaching shows the example and reality of the father’s love but reminds us that the father’s inheritance is for the son who has been consistently faithful. Similarly, even when Jesus exercised loving mercy by not condemning the woman taken in adultery, He nevertheless told her, “Go, and sin no more.” [21] Mercy cannot rob justice [22] and, as we read in modern revelation, those who obtain mercy are “they who have kept the covenant and observed the commandment.”
This interpretation of the parable is entirely contrary to the spirit of the parable. He suggests that the fathers “love” is somehow lesser than the “inheritance”, which supports the idea that the Elder son’s relationship to his father was never about transformation, but a utility to get what he really wanted “the inheritance”. His interpretation also places limits on “the Atonement”, but really almost makes it an “ad hoc” thing for those poor shlubs that can’t be obedient in the first place. His logic is so misplaced, illogical and theologically contradictory. Of course he things this way though, he believes he is the “elder son”, the obedient one who might also be angry when he finds out that his younger brother, who lived the life of a reprobate, has been given ALL the father hath as well. The parable isn’t about getting stuff from Dad, it’s about the journey to becoming “the father”, sharing in his will, and grace and mercy.
I find it interesting that Mormonism, one of the most pharisaical and judgmental faith groups, is critical of the elder brother for being pharisaical. This from a faith group that says obedience, not love, is the most important.
georgis: “But eventually we will need to forgive,” I mean, sure, I would feel fine telling myself this. But I would never tell other people this. Their path to healing is up to them. And while forgiveness is one path to healing, there are other ways. And to your bus analogy, I don’t envision life after death to be at all in line with that story, so I won’t respond to it.
This talk reminds me that, generally speaking, there is one path to leadership and a microphone in this church, and among that path are two personality types. First, the one path to leadership is leading a charmed life. Some people have, for whatever reason, been spared trauma and trials in life. Theirs is the burden to lead because they are the ones with the capacity to do so. Among this group, I count two personality types: those that don’t understand what it’s like trying to heal from trauma but are willing to listen, and those that don’t understand what it’s like to heal from trauma but think they do and act accordingly. I’m guessing this S Mark Palmer is in the latter camp. But I don’t know him; I could be mistaken.
When I was in a bishopric several years ago, a ward member ended up divorced from an addict spouse and was doing their best working part time as a wait staff while raising three daughters. Our bishop eventually tired of writing this person checks and made any future payments contingent upon this person taking steps to get a higher paying job (despite no previous university education). This person’s trauma and responsibilities as a single parent performing large amounts of invisible labor did not compute with the bishop. When several members of the ward tried to educate the bishop, he became defensive. He simply did not understand what this individual had been through and therefore could not provide the assistance she needed, but could only provide the assistance he thought she needed. It still makes me sad to think about it today.
i really appreciate toddsmithson’s comments on the prodigal son parable.
“Of course he thinks this way though, he believes he is the “elder son”, the obedient one”
So much of what Oaks (and many other church leaders?) says makes more sense when you consider his need to justify his past positions and decisions. We neither “seek nor give apologies,” we just write a talk and interpret scripture in a way that explains why we have always been right. And if we can’t quite stretch scripture enough to justify it, we just talk about something else. Forgiveness isn’t a thing if no wrong is recognized as having occurred. Thanks for this insight, toddsmithson
vajraz – “I find it interesting that Mormonism, one of the most pharisaical and judgmental faith groups, is critical of the elder brother for being pharisaical. ”
While I agree that Mormonism is institutionally pharisaical, I don’t think the problem is them being critical of the Elder son, as illustrated by Elder Oaks discourse above. I think the problem is they are blind to the fact they are pharisaical and sympathize with the Elder brother to promote the salvation by “compliance” gospel.
I am an active member, but hardly an orthodox one. For heaven’s sake, I went to the temple this past week with my wife, and the officiator prayed that we could be “worthy of the Atonement”. I was like, what? The whole Christian story just fell apart in that one request.
Chadwick,
You lay out the path to leadership very clearly. I too have been witness to people desperately needing help, and being denied help because the bishop imagines withholding help is justified and effective in helping them back on the path to prosperity. It certainly reduced my ability to trust our leadership.
For people who have done well in life, as any bishop in general has, it’s nice to imagine they did well because of their own actions, and that other people have the same choice to do well too. It simply isn’t true for many people. Yes, we do well because of our hard work, but it’s also because of many factors we have no control over that are simply circumstances that we are born with, that happen to us.
The rain falls on the just and the unjust. Disabilities which prevent independence happen eventually to most people. Our actions cannot guarantee anything in the end. We can only keep trying and keep helping each other up. This is the gritty reality and vulnerability of life. For people who have experienced less of it personally, this can be harder to see.
Toddsmithson, as someone who was pushed into premature “forgiveness” I really hate hate hate your analogy of “refusing forgiveness is like drinking poison in an attempt to harm the person who hurt you. No, often it is just refusing to drink more poison. If you have poisoned me three times already, and I stay angry at you so that I remember you are not to be trusted because I cannot choose to never be around you and I have to protect myself, so I stay angry. Then you accuse me of being worse than you because I am unforgiving and still angry. No, I don’t think so. I am not drinking poison, I am just protecting myself from more hurt and pain. And if that is something you don’t like, well that is on you. Stop poisoning people, so that people can trust you.
Of course there are times when someone chooses to stay angry because they are horrible people and just want a reason to hate you. But 99% of the stories told in church are not that kind of person, but they are about someone still hurting over what was done to them.
So, that is why we are saying stop forcing people to forgive until after you help them stop hurting
Anna – I have sat in ARP circles, both male only and couple’s meetings, almost weekly over the past three and a half years. I have heard countless stories from betrayed spouses of ecclesiastical leaders making premature demands on the spouse to forgive her husband. This, I agree, is not only insensitive, blind, dumb, and irresponsible, but also emotionally abusive. I, in no way, condone, as you say, most LDS talks turning the victim into the perpetrator. To have an absolute bomb dropped on your head and then have another “Man” immediately lay down the forgiveness card is a blatant misunderstanding of how human beings heal.
I know also what it feels like, even years later, after I was personally harmed to hold onto an anger inside me that was now cankering my soul. I felt zero need to reconcile with the person who harmed me, zero need to restore the relationship, but I did come to a point, after many years, where I had to let go of the vengeance inside of me, I had to let go of the desire for them to be harmed also. That part, for me, was allowing them to continue to have power over me.
As “lws” pointed out and I hope I can be clear also, I think that “every” talk or discussion about forgiveness should include a careful distinction with reconciliation. It’s never the loving thing to subject oneself to continued abuse or harm, it’s not loving to yourself or even to the victimizer. It’s not your duty or mine to stay in a harmful situation as some kind of sick proof that we are the bigger person, that’s just ludicrous. To allow someone to continue to harm me in the name of forgiveness is to enable their sin, which is never the just or loving thing to do. To love someone else is to offer whatever good is needed to help them be just, which may be distance, divorce, strong boundaries, jail, or other remedies. So, I apologize for an analogy that clearly has holes in it. Words are slippery little suckers and can be useful and beautiful, but also inadequate and risky. God bless.
Toddsmithson, if we are just going to talk about lack of forgiveness as a desire for revenge, then you know, I never once counseled a domestic violence victim, a child sexual abuse victim or experienced myself any desire for revenge. So, once again, what people mean when they say it is necessary to forgive is very different from someone who says, no it is not necessary to forgive. It comes back to do you mean no desire for revenge, do you mean no anger, do you mean no unjustified anger, do you mean no self protective anger, or do you mean reconciliation where you are at least civil to a relative you are stuck in relationship with, or do you mean full reconciliation back to the loving relationship that was there before harm was done.
I was talking about carrying around anger and you come back at me saying desire for revenge. See, all this time talking about the subject and this group is not clear on a definition for the word we are talking about.
So, I think when people talk about forgiveness, they need to define what they are talking about. I was actually punished by a bishop for not having a full loving relationship. I was all the way to civil relationship with a relative I was stuck with and this jerk bishop refused to even let me have a calling because I was “unforgiving”. No, I just wasn’t letting a child molester have access to my children by letting they stay over night with their grandfather. But I was worse than a child rapist because I (gasp) protected my children from a known child rapist.
That is so far from the kind of thing that you just gave an example of. You were one of those people I said was just looking for a reason to keep hating a person. Yup, I just judged you. I was talking about please stop saying that lack of forgiveness is drinking poison, because it HURTS people like me. See, this is exactly why I don’t go to church. Good, you finally realized that wanting revenge makes you a jerk. Goody for you. But I bet you were never on your bishop’s shit list for “not forgiving” either. I was. For not “forgiving” enough to pretend nothing ever happened. I didn’t think it was safe for me or my children to “forgive” that much. And I bet you agree with me.
I never wanted vengeance. I protected the abuser from any punishment. That is lack of forgiveness because I wasn’t acknowledging the crime that had been committed. That was not even to the stage of getting angry. I carefully waited till the statutes of limitation ran out before I told anyone. So, my only “lack of forgiveness” was actually protecting my abuser. Then I had children I wanted to protect by not allowing my father near them. But that was when I was harshly accused of “lack of forgiveness” and punished for three years by not being considered worthy of any kind of church calling.
So, as other’s have said, please define what you are talking about when you say lack of forgiveness. Don’t further punish those who have been hurt by accusing them of harming themselves by lack of forgiveness and comparing it to drinking poison. Yes, seeking vengeance is like drinking poison and hoping it hurts the person you are angry with. But lack of “forgiveness” may just mean they define forgiveness differently than you do.
Anna,
I want you to know I support your decisions in this matter. I am sorry your bishop set you up to experience judgement on this issue. He was wrong. You did the right thing the best you could at that time.
You could have reported him to authorities: to me that would have been a great thing to do and part of what I consider care for another person and forgiveness. After all he might have moved away and remarried and put children you don’t know in danger.
However, it’s asking too much to expect young female victims to protect society against the patriarchs with all the power. I trust your judgement on every bit of what you did.
Anna – I have always and will continue to value your contributions to, what I think, are important conversations. You articulate your thoughts and feelings well and I actually believe that, if you and I sat across a lunch table, we would likely see many things similarly. I agree with everything you point out above. This is also why online discourse can unravel in a hurry, unable to really hear, listen intently and understand someone else’s limited point of view and the many life experiences that shaped that limited view. I readily admit that I am blind to many things, that partially why I enjoy the W&T conversations, to challenge my limited view and open my eyes to how I often get things wrong.
Let me be clear, I think that Bishop holding you in contempt for protecting your child is despicable, but highly endemic to LDS culture. I can see I have struck a nerve that I have been unable to adequately explain. I assure you, I hear you loud and clear and would gladly defend your position to any LDS leader. We are all a mess, humanity is a mess, the church is a mess, I’m a mess, and being in relationship with messy people is really messy.
I’ve seen “forgiveness” and “the Atonement” in play In my own family. Toxic patriarchs must be forgiven but the child who has left the church is apparently anathema forever. Or as we say when we’re absolutely disgusted, “whatever.”
ARP circles
@toddsmithson
Can I ask what these are? I did a google search and could not come up with much.
madiW my guess is Addiction Recovery Programme given the rest of the comment
This was looking like a great posting up until I read “Trumpification”.
Disappointing.
Trumpification: the rise of the ignorant, venal, corrupt and vicious; a precursor to authoritarian regimes, often, but not necessarily on the Right. cf Peronismo, and the destruction of the Argentine middle class.
Trumpification. Kakistocracy . Tomato. Tomahto