Forgiving Tyrants
Posted by Connor on December 7th, 2006
Tonight in Institute, a fellow ward member made a comment during a lesson on forgiveness. He brought up the issue of Adolf Hitler, as an example to show how he didn’t understand if we’re supposed to forgive such men for atrocious crimes committed. The individual making this comment is quite well-versed in the gospel, and I was intrigued to hear the comment coming from him.
Are we required to forgive Hitler and similar tyrants? Yes.
But why? Well, because Christ said so. While we don’t condone their behavior or think it acceptable by any standard, we are to forgive him. Even Christ, while hanging on the Cross, pierced in various parts of his body, with the heavy weight sinking him down, asked his Father to forgive his murderers. Amazing.
Do we compare? I know I don’t. Like Eve appreciating the Plan of Salvation only after taking the fruit and seeing the difference between joy and misery, or like Alma having his sinful void filled with everlasting joy, I don’t think any of us can truly understand the Miracle of Forgiveness until we are stretched in doing so. Sure, it’s easy to forgive my brother for stealing a dollar, but do I truly forgive him and understand what that implies, or do I think I forgive him simply because it’s only a dollar, and it’s not that big a deal?
Yesterday I had a conversation about this with my mother about this topic. She teaches seminary and one day asked her students if they understood what forgiveness implies. “Of course”, they said. But then she asked them to imagine themselves as parents, with a daughter who had been raped. What, then? Does forgiveness seem so facile? Are we so quick to say that we understand what forgiveness entails and implies?
I don’t fully understand the Miracle of Forgiveness, but I know that unless we do, we’re showing our lack of trust in Christ’s atonement. If he suffered those sins, has forgiven the person of any crimes committed, and since forgotten the event, who are we to continue to lay it at their charge? If Christ forgave his murderers while dying at their hands, truly we are to forgive tyrants, despots, rapists, terrorists, bullies, and the rest of ‘em. That is not to say that we cannot vigorously oppose such evils and spread truth and righteousness—indeed, we must do so—but we must have in our heart a feeling and understanding of forgiveness for such persons.
Forgiveness. In my opinion, it’s one of the hardest tenets of the gospel to understand and implement.
I don’t know what it means, from a practical standpoint, to forgive Adolf Hitler.
If he had been captured alive and I had been on the scene, I would have advocated his execution.
Comment # 1 left by danithew on December 8th, 2006
I think there is a separation that we need to maintain between sin and sinner.
One of the things that seems to be more and more clear to me is that we are all quite different from each other at some very fundamental levels. I am beginning to have the opinion that none of us can hope to know what we would do in another persons situation. We can not even really know what that situation is.
When I keep this in mind it is easier to pass judgement off on the Savior and get on with my life. This is an aspect of faith in Christ. Trusting that all his judgements will be just and eternal. Leave all that to Him.
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on December 8th, 2006
We can not even really know what that situation is.
This is essentially what I told the person after class finished. We can’t really judge (though we’d sure like to), because we don’t accurately know the situation, external influences, peer pressure, familial environment, mental stability, etc. There are so many factors involved that we both don’t know and don’t understand, that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to know for certain why the person did what they did.
Leave all that to Him.
It sure makes life easier to do this. Why worry about something that we have no control over?
Comment # 3 left by Connor Boyack on December 8th, 2006
Judgement is not ours at all; it is the Lord’s. We are told that there is but one unpardonable sin, and even then I do not believe it is known to any of us the proper interpretation of the words. It is not ours to interpret. We are to forgive all men, as we ourselves are forgiven.
Comment # 4 left by Naiah Earhart on December 8th, 2006
“it’s one of the hardest tenets of the gospel to understand and implement”
Indeed! Perhaps the most important questions isn’t why we forgive, but how.
I wish I had better counsel on how to forgive, and danithew’s question is a very good one. I don’t think that forgiving a person means they should go unpunished by civil law–we must only admit that they can be eventually guiltless before God’s law. But that can be a hard distinction to make in a tender heart.
Comment # 5 left by Bradley Ross on December 8th, 2006
If he had been captured alive and I had been on the scene, I would have advocated his execution.
It is entirely possible to advocate civil justice under law and at the same time personally forgive those who are subject to the justice of that law.
Comment # 6 left by Meno on December 8th, 2006
civil justice
Is there such a thing?
Who on the earth is spotless (let he without sin..) such that they can mete out justice without being guilty of hypocrisy and therefore deserving of punishment themselves (ye blind scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!)??
Comment # 7 left by Thrasymachus on December 8th, 2006
Thrasymachus:
I am no social scientist, but do we as a society at least need to make an attempt at civil justice - as imperfect as it may be? What would be the results if we did not try to do this?
Comment # 8 left by Eric Nielson on December 8th, 2006
Technically Christ did NOT forgive the soldiers. He asked Father to forgive them - why didn’t He directly forgive them (He had the power, “go and sin no more, your sins are forgiven”)? Also He added the clause “for they know not what they do”. This could be interpreted to mean “they were just following orders”.
I agree that 1) We are commanded to forgive all men and 2) God is the final judge, and 3) forgiveness doesn’t NOT mean we are to NOT seek restitution.
Comment # 9 left by ed42 on December 8th, 2006
Is there such a thing?
To deny that civil justice is at least possible is to deny the existence of the light of Christ in every individual. Natual law (i.e. that which governs all things, a.k.a. the light of Christ) is discoverable and therefore societies are able to codify it. As such, there are agreed penalties for violations.
Now, I think Thrasymachus’ skepticism/confusion concerns the individuals that carry out civil justice. He naturally perceives its flaw (and rightly so) because of hypocrisy etc. However, this is not to say that civil justice does not exist at least in the abstract and that societies don’t strive to acheive it.
Thus, it is entirely possible to advocate civil justice under law and at the same time personally forgive those who are subject to the–albeit imperfect–justice of that law.
Comment # 10 left by Meno on December 8th, 2006
I think it’s important to consider a significant reason we are commanded to forgive everyone - it’s for our own good. While harboring ill will or feelings or grudges, we do nothing more than harm our spirits. I mean, really, what does it do to Adolf Hitler to hold a grudge against him? But it can damage our souls even if the person we begrudge is someone we don’t know personally.
The day I realized that forgiveness sets me free was a big day for me. Now I just need to figure out how to do it more consistently….
I also think that often, forgiveness is a gift, which is probably why I don’t do it more consistently…I need help doing it!
This brings to mind a story:
Comment # 11 left by Michelle on December 9th, 2006
a significant reason we are commanded to forgive everyone - it’s for our own good.
By extension, is it better then to not even be offended in the first place? No offense, no need to seek to forgive. No harm to our soul.
To deny that civil justice is at least possible
Most anything is possible.. but is it likely?
the individuals that carry out civil justice
Do not omit the hypocrisy in those that suppose todefine civil justice (lately in increasing opposition to the laws of God).
What would be the results if we did not try to do this?
I presume you are suggesting anarchy. This of course is in subtle opposition to Meno’s Light of Christ proposal.
Bonus:
If doing good works before men gives us our reward (nullifies the rewards of God), then why does not “civil justice” before men give us our punishment (nullify the punishments of God)?
If not? Why? Is it because the punishment does not meet up to the standards of God? Is it therefore not just?
Comment # 12 left by Ryan on December 9th, 2006
And if the punishment is not just, isn’t it therefore unjust?
Perhaps there is a misnomer.. maybe “Civil Injustice” is more accurate
Comment # 13 left by Ryan on December 9th, 2006
I mean, really, what does it do to Adolf Hitler to hold a grudge against him?
I once heard a saying that harboring ill feelings toward someone else was like drinking poison yourself and expecting the other person to die.
As for the question of civil justice (all sarcastic interpretations and derivations of the phrase aside). We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. If someone commits a crime, regardless of the level of severity, and the law calls for a certain consequence, then we are to support that consequence, so long as that law is in effect. We may work to change the law, if we see fit, but as long as it is the law, we must sustain the enforcement of it—whether it is a parking ticket issued locally or the sentence of a war crimes tribunal.
Comment # 14 left by Naiah Earhart on December 9th, 2006
Most anything is possible.. but is it likely?
This is a non-sequitur following the initial point: that it is possible to advocate for (and strive toward) an ideal of justice while at the same time forgiving those whom civil justice has in its grasp.
That civil justice is imperfect does not mean it should not exist or doesn’t legitimately exist at least in part. For example, most fundamental/core penal statutes are derived from Mosaic law, e.g. proscribing murder, all forms of theft, assault, and battery. These laws are not unjust; the issue is the imperfect system for determining culpability of violators. But the imperfectness of that system is not a cogent argument for the impossibility of personally forgiving those with the laboring ore under the same. Indeed, one could argue that because the system is imperfect, it should/could be easier to personally forgive those bound under it; because after all, they could be innocent anyway.
Comment # 15 left by Meno on December 9th, 2006
Do not omit the hypocrisy in those that suppose to define civil justice (lately in increasing opposition to the laws of God).
I suspect that under this thought, and application of its logic, it is impossible in this mortal existence for anyone to define civil justice who is not a hypocrite. (See Romans 3:23)
This poses another problem: most misunderstand the definition of hypocrisy.
Therefore, virtually everyone (including your suggestion) uses the term hypocrisy erroneously!
Comment # 16 left by Meno on December 9th, 2006
By extension, is it better then to not even be offended in the first place? No offense, no need to seek to forgive. No harm to our soul.
Yup. Well said.
Comment # 17 left by Michelle on December 9th, 2006
IMHO–even Hitler was human, as are we. To forget this is to assume that we would never act as badly as he or German society did during that time, because we’re somehow better. We must assume that we are not; we’re all human, we are all vulnerable to the same weaknesses, and only our knowledge of our own weaknesses can prevent us from succumbing to them.
If you see someone fall in a pit, it would be dumb to say, “Oh, he was bad; I’m good, so I can walk across, and will not fall in.” A wise person says “Oh, he fell into a pit! That’s dangerous! I’d better make sure I don’t fall in.”
Your next thought might be, “Maybe I can help the person who’s in the pit.” And this is good, but you have to be careful, because the weight of the other person might pull you in. The love talked about by the gospels is the solid anchor point for you to attach your rope. Practicing love makes the anchor point stronger.
You can offer that love even to Hitler. Study him, learn about his life, know him, and see how if you’d been in his shoes you might have done the same things. Knowing that, forgiveness is easy, unnecessary; it’s like forgiving a cloud from raining on you. Which isn’t to say you should leave your umbrella at home, just that anger and revenge and justice are unlikely to improve things.
Imagine if we locked up criminals with love, instead of as punishment; to protect the community and to protect the person’s future self from having committed more crimes (because the person will someday recognize the wrongness of what they’ve done). It might make the whole process much healthier, more aimed at rehabilitation and understanding the root causes of society’s problems and fixing them.
So, yeah. Love. Forgive. Eschew hatred and revenge. Stay out of the pit.
Comment # 18 left by Yam on December 10th, 2006
It might make the whole process much healthier, more aimed at rehabilitation and understanding the root causes of society’s problems and fixing them.
Very good!
Comment # 19 left by Meno on December 10th, 2006
What a moral trainwreck.
It’s really strange to me how wimpy and mindless LDS people turn when they start talking about forgiveness and Hitler. It’s as if they achieved some high idealistic mystical state, that they can turn off all faculties and judgment and be prepared to forget all the millions of victims (men, women and children) and forgive one of the cruelest killers of all time. When you encounter a person like that, it’s a moral imperative to kill him. It would actually be immoral to start gushing about forgiveness and not hating and being really nice and pondering every potential exigent circumstance.
No. You execute him. On the spot. With whatever is handy. Hopefully there’s a rope, a beam and a chair nearby. Or a knife. Or a gun. Doesn’t really matter.
Comment # 20 left by danithew on December 11th, 2006
Nephi smote off Laban’s head–at the Lord’s command. Aside from such, or similar extraordinary circumstance, you cannot claim a moral imperative for murder.
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Comment # 21 left by Naiah on December 12th, 2006
When you encounter a person like that, it’s a moral imperative to kill him.
I’m all for capital punishment (so is God!), but that’s not what I was talking about here. I’m not saying we should forgive Hitler in the temporal sense, but in the eternal sense. Forgiveness does not necessarily equal amnesty. Consequences for actions must be brought about, otherwise justice is blown to smithereens. Sure, go ahead and execute the guy (and others like him) to prevent further crimes against humanity, but we’re supposed to forgive everybody. Seventy times seven. That’s a lot of times to forgive. I’m only up to number 35.
Comment # 22 left by Connor Boyack on December 12th, 2006
Danithew,
I don’t think anyone would agree that there are certain situations where it is only just to kill someone for crimes that have taken other lives. As Connor said, God is not against capital punishment. I find it interesting, though, that He still expects us to forgive ALL people, with no qualifications.
Comment # 23 left by Michelle on December 12th, 2006
Connor wrote: “Forgiveness does not necessarily equal amnesty.”
That is a very interesting line and idea. It really is. But on the face of it, it sounds impossible. I don’t know what it means to simultaneously punish and forgive. How do you pull that off? Especially if we are talking about something as serious as capital punishment.
Comment # 24 left by danithew on December 12th, 2006
[…] From what I’ve seen and heard in life and the bloggernacle, there’s a sizeable group of Mormons out there who will immediately come up with the following: Doctrine and Covenants 64:10 […]
Comment # 25 left by Mormon Mentality - Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People » A Name and Scripture Verse Association Game on December 12th, 2006
As for forgiveness and amnesty, they are not mutually exclusive. One can offer one’s own forgiveness–which for me often includes a level of leaving the final say up to the Lord, given that it is His; it’s a level of suspension of my own judgement, because it is not my place to judge eternally–and still uphold enforcement of the law. One law is eternal and the other is temporal, and the two laws, rooted in obedience, coexist just fine; it is simply important to recognize their different spheres.
Comment # 26 left by Naiah on December 12th, 2006
Punishment and forgiveness can be completely compatible, even in the same sphere.
Think about it–why punish at all? Justice, yes, but what do you base that justice on?
If it’s based on revenge and retribution, you are making the world a worse place. You’re not solving any problem, only creating new ones.
If it’s based on restitution and keeping people safe, it’s completely compatible with forgiveness, love towards the individual being punished, and the community in which the individual lives.
You can forgive someone while still requiring that they make things right. You can remove them from society if they just don’t get it, if it’s necessary for the safety of others, but do it with love and regret for the necessity.
Lock someone up in hell for a couple years, and they might see the error of their ways… but they’ll probably emerge a hardened criminal. Rehabilitate the person, understand why they committed the crime and work towards fixing the root causes, and you will turn criminals into upstanding citizens, and perhaps learn how to prevent people from turning to crime in the first place. This is better.
Comment # 27 left by Yam on December 12th, 2006
Connor:
I think that the hypothetical of forgiving Hitler is misplaced and inapplicable. Hitler did not do anything to us- he is just a historical figure that we learn about. Hearing of his atrocities may evoke moral outrage within us, but that is not the same as the feelings that arise when someone sins (or offends) directly against us. I would argue that where Hitler has not perpetrated any crime against me, I cannot forgive him because I do not have the power to do so. I would argue that the power to forgive lies only within the target of the offense.
On a slightly less related note, that Institute teacher should have immediately invoked Godwin’s law and moved on with the lesson.
In any case, I forgive you!
Comment # 28 left by Jordan on December 12th, 2006
I would argue that where Hitler has not perpetrated any crime against me
How is it that you know what might have happened had Hitler not risen to power? His impact was so far-reaching that I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world who was not affected by his actions.
Who knows what the people who died as a result of his regime (not just the jews and the gypsies, etc.. but the soldiers who fought and died against his war machine, and that of his allies) might have accomplished? What or who they might have affected?
He is far from just a historical figure that we learn about, his ideology and actions have shaped much of the political and sociological climate we know today. You would live in a much different world minus Hitler.
Comment # 29 left by Ryan on December 12th, 2006
‘Tis true, Ryan. But I still feel like imposing a requirement to “forgive Hitler” is a bit far-reaching. It’s like asking me to forgive Nero (the world would arguably also be a much different place without Nero’s reign). It’s just too abstract to be meaningful, in my opinion.
If I felt personally offended by them, it would mean something. But what I feel is righteous (I believe) moral outrage at their abuses of society and people. Moral outrage is not something that begs forgiveness, but a state of acknowledging that a person’s behavior has been morally unacceptable. I feel no need to forgive Hitler for anything because what I feel for him is a sense of moral outrage, not the anger or bitterness against a personal offender that would canker the soul.
If we expand “forgiveness” to include such abstractions as forgiving Hitler or Nero or Nebuchadnezzar or any number of psychotic leaders who have reigned with blood and horror on this earth, then in my opinion we reduce the personal meaningfulness and importance of forgiving those whom we have the power to forgive (e.g., those who have sinned against us.)
Am I really supposed to consciously forgive every convicted murderer I read about in the paper or hear about in the news for crimes that weren’t directed towards me (understanding of course, that such crimes have a ripple effect in society that at some level of abstraction does affect me at some point)? I don’t know if I have the capacity to do so (certainly Christ did/does!) or the need, or have even been commanded to by the cited injunction to “forgive all men”. What I feel when I read about the crimes of such men is a sense of moral outrage, a sense of justice, a certain measure of pity for the depraved state of society in general, and a certain sense of duty to make the world a better place. I don’t think these are the types of feelings that beg forgiveness. And, I don’t even think it is possible to forgive such abstract wrongs (abstract in the sense that, while they affect me at some level, they were not levelled against me personally).
Think of the mechanics of forgiving every such person- whether it be Hitler, Nero, Nebechudnezzar, Stalin, the murderer in the paper, etc. Would we have to write each individual person about whom we feel a just sense of moral outrage a letter in which we “forgive” them? Or better yet visit them in person to tell them we have forgiven them?
It almost seems presumptuous to assume power of forgiveness over such a vast array of people. I believe that forgiveness is a type of power we hold over certain people, which is one reason why I think we have been enjoined to forgive all men- so that this power belongs to God and not to us.
Comment # 30 left by Jordan on December 12th, 2006
By the way, that is not to say that we can’t or should not forgive total strangers. Let me explain with an example from my life:
Last year, I was dropping my son off at his elementary school. One woman was jaywalking (one of the CARDINAL RULES for EVERYONE to follow at the local elementary schools is that you ALWAYS, ALWAYS use the cross walk!) with her child and I had to hit the brakes quickly to avoid hitting her. Right in front of her child, the woman flipped me off and shouted a couple of derogatory phrases. At first, I was fuming. How could she jaywalk, nearly killing herself and her child, then unload such a barrage of profanity on me in front of her little girl and my very young son (not to mention the other children who probably overheard it)?!? I was very miffed to say the least.
But then the injunction to forgive all men weighed heavily on my heart, as well as a sudden understanding that this woman may have weightier things on her mind than crossing the street in the right place. I thought about how upset I would be if, ignorant of my own mistake in jaywalking, I narrowly missed being hit, along with my child, by some driver dropping their child off for school.
My heart was softened, and I approached the woman (parked nearby) to apologize to HER for nearly hitting her. I did, and she melted immediately. With tears in her eyes, she apoligized profusely for her heated reaction, and told me that she and her family had just moved into the area and were feeling very stressed about this new locale. She asked my forgiveness, which I promptly gave, and we both left feeling quite happy and “light”.
To me, if we are going to speak about forgiving “random” people, such an episode of forgiveness towards an anonymous individual who actually offended us directly is infinitely more meaningful than some abstract sense of forgiving a long-dead tyrant with absolutely no connection to me save his ripple effect on society (which certainly affects me, but I would argue not in a way forgiveable by me. Not because I WON’T forgive, but because I do not believe I have the power to do so).
I also really, really liked what was said about the higher road of not even taking offense in the first place!
Comment # 31 left by Jordan on December 12th, 2006
[…] I saw a sadly common thought on a recent post, and thought it’d be worth making a top-level post about it. Here’s a link to the actual comment, and here’s the text: What a moral trainwreck. […]
Comment # 32 left by Blogger of Jared » Blog Archive » Pacifism on December 30th, 2006