I myself was thinking of the scripture about unrighteous dominion.

Simon Wiesenthal wrote a wonderful book called “The Sunflower.” I’m thinking, if I remember right, it’s a true story about an experience he had. It’s a good exploration of the nature of forgiveness.

I certainly don’t forgive Hitler, but then, it’s not up to me. It didn’t happen to me. According to many Jews, some things can’t be forgiven in this life. Because life is eternal, the nature of our ability to forgive is also eternal. Jesus didn’t say forgive immediately.

Bradley, your advice “just forgive” is far too simplistic for me. If I didn’t know better (knowing that life is hard for everyone), I’d think you’d never been gravely inujured by another human being. It’s just not that easy.

There’s a powerful strain of thought in Christianity that insists that Christ does indeed require us to forgive all men, and at the same time, is entirely cognizant that such a thing is impossible for us. We struggle through life in a frail, mortal condition, too weighed down with pain and anger and imperfection to meet the high bar that Christ has set.

This teaches us humility and causes us to turn to God; it also, however, means that we can never stop trying.

Let’s see if I can write this somewhat eloquently, or at least to where others can understand:

To me forgiveness isn’t just a simple action, its a process. Sometimes it take many, many years or a lifetime, or is never completely complete in this lifetime. Othertimes, it just takes a few minutes. I think a key common part to this process (which I believe is personalized to each and every person)is letting go of the anger.

I don’t think in the case of the Nazi Party, any sane person is saying to forgive or forget, because we can never forget those atrocities.

A few days ago Pinochet passed away. I served a mission in Santiago and was there during the riots of the 25th anniversary and the first trial and extradition procedures. That period of Chilean (and American) history is extremely complicated. That particular point should never be forgotten, but at the same time–the anger is eventually replaced with someone else.

To wrap it up, I think that scripture has a personal application but can be used on a larger scale.

JKC, I see your point and it’s hard to argue with what you are saying about the all-inclusiveness of the word “all” …

My approach to that problem is to ask at least one question …

Can we broaden the judgment of Hitler so that it includes other pertinent passages of scripture? I think if we stand with only that verse, we end up seeing forgiveness as a very immediate requirement rather than as part of a process that should take place. Hitler is uniquely evil in history and should be dealt with as a uniquely evil in history. There are plenty of evil men in scripture (Amalickiah, Ammoron, Zerahemnah, Herod, etc.) and we should look to see how righteous men or even Christ interacted with them. It’s interesting to me, for example, that Christ refused to even speak in Herod’s presence and that in another situation he referred to Herod as “that fox.” Is it possible that Christ was feeling resentment at Herod’s evil acts? Should we be able to feel that same indignation as well? Can we take any direction from how Moroni and Teancum responded to the evil men they were forced to contend with? Remember that Teancum personally assassinated two evil adversaries who were leaders of armies. I don’t have a problem seeing Hitler as being a similar figure in a similar context.

I’m not saying we should take the forgiveness verse out of the equation. But I’m saying we should bring other scriptural passages into the equation for additional consideration and insight.

I do remember that lesson. I think it was Sunday School, but it might have been seminary. The teacher read from the manual the description of a dream or vision that a church leader had in which he saw a small, pitiful man sobbing among outdoor ruins. The church leader having the dream felt sorry for the man, and went to comfort him, and only then did he see that the man was Hitler. He took from it that the Lord was teaching him to forgive everyone. I guess I’m misremembering details or not remembering enough of the key words because I haven’t been able to find the manual that says that. I would really like to find it, if anyone else knows where it might be.

I think the story/dream is described in Eugene England’s book “The Quality of Mercy” … towards the end of the book. I don’t have it handy and I can’t find the quote I’m thinking of online.

I agree with Dan (#9), the only people that I will be forgiving is anyone who might of wronged me. Please don’t mistake this as endorsement of what he did. That was terrible and there are people out there even today that probably do need to forgive him.

It is, in my opinion that “of you it is required to forgive all men.” that sin against you.

But let me ask this, in order to forgive someone should they have first asked for forgiveness?

Jettboy, I guess the question comes down to whether or not Christ’s command to “forgive all men” removes all human rights to judge and punish criminals.

I don’t think it does. We still have a responsibility to order and protect society. Forgiveness doesn’t mean that we submit to or tolerate tyrants.

In the comments to his post (that I linked to), Connor writes something about forgiveness not necessarily equaling amnesty. That line intrigued me, though it doesn’t make much sense to me right now. I’ll probably be mulling that over and trying to see if I can put any scriptural reasoning behind it.

I recently read a verse that now comes to mind:

Doctrine and Covenants 134:4
We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. (italics and bold added by me)

I’m not sure if that’s helpful or not … but the idea that a civil magistrate (or other human being) has the right to “restrain crime” and “punish guilt” … that rings true to me, regardless of what scriptures there are about forgiveness.

Danithew, thanks for this thoughtful post.

I agree with those who have said Hitler is not for them to forgive. Hitler hasn’t wronged me or anyone I know. I would find it very presumptuous to “forgive” someone on behalf of others who’ve suffered in ways I can’t even imagine.

Yes, we’re supposed to forgive all men, but I don’t see how forgiveness is even possible in the absence of any emotional connection to the person whatsoever. Before there can be forgiveness there has to be wrong and resentment and anger. Surely we’re not reading “forgive all men” to mean mentally going through every single person who’s ever lived and “forgiving” them all, including the 99.9999% we’ve never even met. The context of the verse suggests God is talking about the people we actually have relationships with and resentments toward (like his disciples of old toward one another) and thus a limitation of “all men” to “all men and women who have wronged us.”

And I’m very suspicious of most ethical discussions in which Hitler’s name is invoked. Hitler’s become such an easy shorthand for ultimate evil. I think we trivialize the evil he did when we toss him around in moral hypotheticals.

Saying “I forgive Hitler” is a cheap and self-congratulatory form of righteousness, and it brutalizes those who suffered under him. Let’s leave Hitler to God and not add to the suffering of those who face the arduous, often lifelong task of coming to terms with what he did to them, to their families, to their worlds.

AnneGB said, “Bradley, your advice “just forgive” is far too simplistic for me. … It’s just not that easy.”

I believe it is that simple. I think that simple things can be incredibly hard.

To those who say that can’t forgive Hitler because he didn’t do anything to them: If someone schemes against your elderly friend and causes her to lose her life savings, would you be angry and resentful? I would. Even though I wasn’t harmed, I would need to forgive. Forgiveness isn’t about letting the other person off the hook. (You don’t have the power to do that.) It is about releasing the anger and hatred inside of you and turning the situation over the Savior.

Hugh Nibley famously said there are only two things we need to learn to do in this life: repent and forgive.

Yeah, I think you’re right that we should think about other scriptures when we try to characterize how we should respond to evil. On the one hand, we’ve got “resist not evil” and “of you it is required to forgive all men” and on the other we’ve got the ones you cited about Jesus speaking disdainfully of Herod, of the verses that speak of restraining crime, etc. It is important to look at both halves.

I’ve always been intrigued by Teancum, now that you’ve brought him up. One one side, I can see justification for his actions–better that one man die, etc. and all that. But on the other side, I’m just not comfortable with the idea that assassinations are okay. I think it’s important to realize that Moroni and Teancum and all the other prophets made mistakes and that *if* we see a contradiction between their actions and Jesus’ teachings (not that that is the case, but if we see that) then in my mind Jesus’ teachings trump prophet’s actions. I don’t think I have any authority to judge Teancum. But couldn’t we look at his two assassinations as the right and the wrong way? I mean, the first time it says that he simply did it. The second time, Mormon emphasizes the fact that Teancum went out “in his anger” to assassinate Ammoron. And that time, he was killed himself. Isn’t *one* possible reading of that story that Teancum a very literal fulfillment of the principle later expressed by the Savior that those who live by the sword die by the sword?

What would have happened had Teancum not killed Ammoron? What would have happened had Moroni and the Nephites submitted to Lamanite slaughter rather than resisting them? I don’t know, but I think it is at least possible that we would have seen the Anti-Lehi-Nephi story repeated. I’m not suggesting that it is wrong to act in self-defense. I am suggesting that in situations when we are attacked, there are multiple courses of action that are acceptable to the Lord that probably include both forgiveness and submission and self-defense and attack.

Maybe D&C 98 explains this: “And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands; And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified” (vv. 29-31). Sometimes we are justified in defense or retribution, but even then, it is better to forgive. I find this explanation most persuasive.

I personally think that anger clarified Teancum’s judgment. He accurately identified the two personalities driving Lamanite armies against the Nephites and assassinated them. Good for him.

When a state is in a war, the leadership of the adversary should be a primary target.

Dan, I’d have to agree that Teancum was not a prophet … at least from what we read it does not appear that he was a figure in any kind of religious hierarchy. He was a general over an army.

It seems that we have no way of knowing whom the Lord will forgive and whom he will not. As He has made quite clear, His ways are not ours.

danithew,

the issue of assassination of leaders as a military strategy has changed over the centuries. In previous times, it would have been considered rude and unbecoming a civilized soldier to assassinate a general. Generals sat back and watched the field of battle, doing their best to protect their soldiers as best they could. There was a respect for that position. George Washington, for example, was well respected by the British and he was basically to be left unharmed. If the British had employed assassins, America would never have won the Revolutionary War.

Today we get the impression that if we cut the head of the snake off, the rest of the body will somehow die off, be rudderless, leaderless. That would be true if our enemy was fighting on the sheer force of the personality of the leader, like say a Napoleon, someone that has the charisma to lead a massive group to battle that would not normally be led to battle on their own.

But this strategy has little value when your enemy is not led by a single individual, but by an ideology, a way of thought. The head of this snake, this enemy is not the guy giving orders; it is the ideology itself. In order to defeat this kind of enemy, that ideology must be thoroughly discredited, to the point where the enemy sees no reason to fight. This is the equivalent of cutting off the head of the snake.

In the case of Iran and Ahmadinejad, he’s not even the head of the snake. He’s not even close. He’s not even one of the heads of the hydra that is Iran. No. He’s an experiment. He’s a guinea pig. He’s a trial balloon sent out to distract. I’m actually wondering if the real head of Iran is getting tired of Ahmadinejad.

In any case, Iran is not our enemy. Iranians are not our enemies. I think Americans are still suffering from war fever, even though we’ve thoroughly failed Iraq, we still seek blood. We’re our worst enemies. Take Al-Qaida for example. You cannot defeat Al-Qaida through military means, because their lifeblood is not people, but the ideology, and their ideology lives and breathes on the West being belligerent towards Islam. The more we fight Islamic countries, the more we prove Al-Qaida right in Muslim eyes. In any case, Al-Qaida is fairly weak in the Muslim world. They cannot conquer any country. This is why they love it when we attack Muslim countries. We take down rules they hate for them. They’d love to see a full on civil war between Shi’ites and Sunnis. And with Saudi Arabia threatening to back Sunnis in Iraq, while Iranians are backing Shi’ites in Iraq, that’s what you’ll get. The irony is that America wants to back the Shi’ites in Iraq. Cheney’s foolish “80% rule.”

Anyways, I diverge. The way to cut the head off the snake of Al-Qaida is to thoroughly discredit their ideology. Their ideology is built on the West attacking Muslim nations. So how do we discredit that ideology? Well, we’ve failed already. We attacked, so far, two Muslim nations (Afghanistan and Iraq), we’ve threatened two others with destruction (Syria and Iran), we’ve allowed Israel to utterly bombard a fifth back to the stone age (Lebanon)…we’re not doing so well.

I bet, and I believe this pretty strongly, but I bet Captain Moroni would have been utterly disappointed with our military strategy over these past six years.

danithew,

that’s fine. the direction America is taking (seen by the November election) is a markedly improved direction. It will be a slow process, but I think by 2008 or 2010, current policies will be utterly discredited and left to history.

don’t worry, that wasn’t the impression I got from you.