He also pushed an Orson Pratt-like panpsychism where God is actually The Process of the universe rather that a person. I found that to be an interesting direction from his philosophy.

I sort of appreciated his reasons for pushing reincarnation too (even though we Mormons clearly would reject his take on it.)

I enjoyed the link, but I’m not sure what I want to do with it. The guy hits on some great ideas but there are a lot of absolutists and ex nihilo assumptions mixed in too… I’ll figure out if I can work it into a post some how…

This is totally off topic, but I just came across a brilliant essay which made me think of you immediately upon reading it. I obviously won’t expect you to go in for all of what is said in it, for that’s not really the intent behind it, but some of the ideas I think you will find absolutely wonderful. Here it is:

Is God a Taoist?

I would love to here what you have to say about it.

It is dawning on me that forgiveness is about relationship more than anything else. Not about a relationship with no rules or standards though. When we fail to forgive we essentially say “I refuse to have a relationship with you under any circumstance.” In other words, we are saying that no matter how much remorse or change or repentance that person goes through — no matter how much better or Christ-like they become — we refuse to have a relationship with them. (This type of unforgiveness is beautifully illustrated in Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities with the French attitude toward the innocent Charles Darnay).

But imagine what would become of us if God treated us that way. We have all offended God. If he had the attitude that he would not accept us back under any circumstance then we would indeed be cast off forever regardless of any and all repentance. That is why it is so scary when he tells us that we will be given the same type of forgiveness we give others. He will accept us back into a loving relationship with him upon our repentance — but only if we extend the same conditions to those that offend us.

So forgiveness is not pretending we were never injured. It is a willingness to enter a relationship with with our offender — even though we can (and must) have conditions for entering that relationship.

And I think this can happen in degrees as well. The least we can do is sit back and silently expect the offender to read our mind and know what our conditions for a relationship are. Or we can actively (although perhaps cautiously) reach out to the offender and tell them what needs to be done if they wish to have a relationship with us. Of course we hope that God will do the latter for us when we offend him so it probably behooves us to do the same for our enemies/offenders.

In a real sense, we are practicing being like God when we reach out to those that have injured us and show a willingness to help them meet the conditions of a renewed relationship with us. (And it is not only ok to set standards for a renewed relationship, it is God-like…)

how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.

That sort of shows that Christ has an open door policy for us…

I thought I knew of one passage in which God’s outstretched hand represented mercy, but I can’t find it anywhere.

The example you gave of the two brothers shows that forgiveness often must be extended in both directions between parties where both are injured and both have been offenders. All we can do is control our own forgiveness though.

I think the Lord shows the best example where he says regardless of our offenses against Him, his “hand is stretched out still“. He is always there for us but he has conditions for our behavior if we want to have a relationship with him. I think we can do the same as long as the conditions we set are just and righteous. It sounds like the brother that forgave in your story at least put the ball in the court of the unforgiving brother. The forgiving one could theoretically carry on with a clear conscience while the unforgiving brother had to deal with the burden of malice and a vengeful heart.

If the question is whether is one can be agry at someone and still meet the requirements of forgiveness… I think up to a point the answer is yes. While the injury is fresh feeling some frustration/anger is likely.

For instance, if your brother intentionally pokes you in the eye and laughs at your pain, I think you can forgive him in the strict sense of loving him and wanting the best for him but still being mad at and disappointed with him.

But the question is what will you do next? Your eye and feelings will heal but will you love him enough to show a little tough love? To frankly help him learn that such behavior will hurt him in the long run? Knowing how to do that and getting the nerve to do so is what requires inspiration/revelation I guess.

Perhaps another difficult question is whether we truly forgive if we do or say nothing to help the offender change for the better…

Hmmmmm

We also studied Pres. Hinckley’s talk in Priesthood. In our lesson we focused on the idea that forgiveness was a blessing to the one offended, in that he doesn’t have to carry the burden of a grudge around for the rest of his life. Forgiveness is more for the forgiver, than for the forgiven. Someone brought up the example of one who was offended by his brother and for seven years they didn’t speak to each other. It was affecting their whole family. But when the first brother wanted to reconcile, he reached out to his brother, but the brother didn’t want to respond. We all agreed in class that the one who reached out did what the Lord wanted him to. So even if the other brother didn’t respond, the first brother was OK in God’s eyes.

I’m sure that doesn’t help in the other situations presented here, but I think it helps to focus less on what the other person does, and more on what our state of being is when we can forgive. But I also think that forgiveness doesn’t mean that you pretend it never happened. You may forgive a person, but that doesn’t mean you will have the same level of trust in them right away. I think it just means that you don’t wish them to go to hell, as Geoff said above. We can forgive someone, but recognize that for the person to show true repentence, he may have to go through the complete consequences of his actions, like maybe being held accountable by the laws of the land, if he’s committed some crime, or by making restitution either by directly restoring what may have been taken, if that’s the case, or by some other substitute for restitution, if direct restitution isn’t possible. (I’m thinking about the long thread over at BCC on the recent decision in the Washington state court.)