Turn the other cheek?

[Seminarysnoozer]

What does it mean to turn the other cheek in our day?

Matthew 5: 38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also."

And; Matthew 5: 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

And 3 Nephi 13:15 “If ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”

I had a friend tell me she won a fairly big settlement in a law suit and the majority of it was for "pain and suffering." She received amounts beyond medical bills and destruction of her property even. This was several years ago and at the time I was her visiting teacher when she said this, I wanted to respond with those scriptures above but I held my tongue. I am thankful I didn't judge her as she became a good friend of mine, but it made me think of what I would do if faced with similar circumstances.

I, luckily, have never had to face that decision but I can see how it would be hard to not be angry in a law suit and ask for "pain and suffering." It seems that "pain and suffering" law suits would be against the gospel of Jesus Christ, am I over reading these commandments? I would think too, a Christian lawyer would not want to participate in such law suits involving pain and suffering either. Maybe you could say the same about starting any law suit, but at a minimum those that would require payment for "pain and suffering" should be avoided. I believe in upholding the laws of the land and the state charging criminals, but "going after someone" in court seems against these principles.

[pam]

I'm not a sue happy person. Yet I do think there are appropriate times that it might be necessary. Especially in cases of negligence that has caused a death. There is lot of "pain and suffering" when having to deal with this. A lot.

Until you've been in this kind of situation you just really have no idea what families go through. Especially knowing that a loved ones death was caused by negligence.

Also the anguish that a family goes through for months and years concerning decisions that might have had to have been made in a medical decision.

Edited November 11, 2009 by pam

[applepansy]

There are scriptures about this... the first one that comes to mind is found in Matthew

Matt. 5: 41

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Also,

Matt. 5: 25

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

3 Ne. 12: 25

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison.

There is more in the D&C but I can't remember the passages right off.

More about avoiding lawyers and judges.

My personal belief is that we should avoid lawsuits. However, there are times when they are thrust upon us. When that happens we have to play in the dirt to protect ourselves and those we love. Its not fun. Its not good. But I do know from experience that with the help of the Lord outcomes can be for the best.

Sometimes compensation for pain and suffering is appropriate and sometimes its not. The only time I think compensation for pain and suffering is appropriate is when the person is permanently injured in a way that will require money to take care of them. Otherwise, pain and suffering settlements are just taking advantage of the system.

My two cents....

EDIT: I lost a son at age 21 to a car accident where the man who drove a motorhome, over the little hatchback honda the kids were in, was at fault. The parents of the other kid that died were very vindictive. They wanted everything the man owned. They did internet searches for all his assets. They hired an attorney immediately. My husband and I took another approach. We let the atonement work. We're not saints. We did end up having to hire an attorney because both young men left a child behind and there were Insurance settlements to be determined. I wish it didn't have to come to all that. We realized forgiveness would heal better than retribution or compensation for pain and suffering. Nothing would bring our son back or make anything better. (And I didn't want him to have to come back and struggle in this life.....long story).

I'm so glad we took the road we did. Its been 10 years today and we're at peace. The other parenst are still struggling and are very angry. Because of their bitterness they refused to let the friends come to the funeral. We had the opposite response. They were all there... all their friends, even friends that would have only gone to the other funeral if given a choice. And they stayed.... for the family prayer, for the family dinner, etc. During all that heartache and turmoil the gospel was taught to some very lost kids. I'm so thankful for a Heavenly Father who loves us all. I'm thankful for Christ's atonement. I know that when we make the decision to act as Christ would, then everything turns out as it should.

Edited November 11, 2009 by applepansy

[Just_A_Guy]

What Pam (EDIT: and Applepansy) said. (No one would believe a lawyer's opinion on this, anyways! )

Edited November 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

Actually JAG..I'd love to hear your opinion. I have much respect for you.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks for the compliment, Pam. But really, yours and Applepansy's thoughts are in line with my own on this. Always better to work things out amicably; but the underlying concept of a lawsuit is (or should be) to put the victim in the same position as if the tort had never happened. Medical bills alone aren't always enough to do that. The problem with "pain and suffering" is that it's such a nebulous concept that people assume it's bunk; but you can assume that where juries award it it's because they've been shown some very detailed calculations.

"Punitive damages", IMHO, are a whole other ball of wax. I agree that tortfeasors should pay punitive damages, but I'm not sold on the idea that tort victims should receive them.

[Generally_Me]

OK, I was given to understand that getting smitten on the right cheek means backhanded, or in otherwords is more an insult than physical pain. If someone is truly hurt, they have the right and the duty to fight back (at an attacker, in the moment) or pursue damages. Sometimes pursuing damages will cause others to have protection that the original victim did not have, as a bite to the wallet is often what gets things moving in a corporation.

When the judge awarded her with more than she'd needed or asked, what was she going to do, turn around and hand it back to the defending lawyer? Some injuries result in lifelong pain and suffering, how do you put a price on that?

[pam]

I do agree that many law suits are done for money purposes only. Not all. Many times it's to make companies or individuals accountable for actions. Especially when it's been proven that a company or an individual has been found negligent in the past.

Perhaps I'm just too close to this situation and am biased. Having been through what I and my family have been through in the last few months..I just can't agree that the terms "pain and suffering" should NEVER be included in a lawsuit. Pain and suffering can sometimes have long term effects. There is not a day that goes by that I don't question why and also wonder if a decision that my family and I made was the correct one.

I wish I could go into more detail..but yes..we are in pre-litigation.

[pam]

juries award it it's because they've been shown some very detailed calculations

I agree with this. We've had to provide very detailed financial information and calculated financial losses. And I'm not talking about medical bills.

[Generally_Me]

Pam, have you ever watched judge shows? It's pretty easy to tell when people shouldn't be suing. Like, when their dog is larger than teacup size...or when someone hit you because you were beating them down...or when they withdraw their child from your daycare without notice because you were mistreating the child. You're a sensible person, and I'm sure any lawsuit you are currently pursuing does not fit into the "bogus" category.

[pam]

Thanks hon. I respect whatever decisions people make concerning things like this. I just don't want to have to feel like I'm having to defend a decision that my family and I made to pursue something. Perhaps others are more Christlike than I am. Our decision was made because we want a facility held accountable especially in light of past lawsuits against them and won. It's about finding answers as to why something was allowed to happen. It's about making them wake up and see that when you take on the responsibility of care for someone..that's exactly what it means.

[Seminarysnoozer]

More about avoiding lawyers and judges.

My personal belief is that we should avoid lawsuits. However, there are times when they are thrust upon us. When that happens we have to play in the dirt to protect ourselves and those we love. Its not fun. Its not good. But I do know from experience that with the help of the Lord outcomes can be for the best.

Sometimes compensation for pain and suffering is appropriate and sometimes its not. The only time I think compensation for pain and suffering is appropriate is when the person is permanently injured in a way that will require money to take care of them. Otherwise, pain and suffering settlements are just taking advantage of the system.

My two cents....

EDIT: I lost a son at age 21 to a car accident where the man who drove a motorhome, over the little hatchback honda the kids were in, was at fault. The parents of the other kid that died were very vindictive. They wanted everything the man owned. They did internet searches for all his assets. They hired an attorney immediately. My husband and I took another approach. We let the atonement work. We're not saints. We did end up having to hire an attorney because both young men left a child behind and there were Insurance settlements to be determined. I wish it didn't have to come to all that. We realized forgiveness would heal better than retribution or compensation for pain and suffering. Nothing would bring our son back or make anything better. (And I didn't want him to have to come back and struggle in this life.....long story).

I'm so glad we took the road we did. Its been 10 years today and we're at peace. The other parenst are still struggling and are very angry. Because of their bitterness they refused to let the friends come to the funeral. We had the opposite response. They were all there... all their friends, even friends that would have only gone to the other funeral if given a choice. And they stayed.... for the family prayer, for the family dinner, etc. During all that heartache and turmoil the gospel was taught to some very lost kids. I'm so thankful for a Heavenly Father who loves us all. I'm thankful for Christ's atonement. I know that when we make the decision to act as Christ would, then everything turns out as it should.

Thanks for sharing your story. I am always amazed at families that can forgive so quickly. For me, at least, I think this would be one of the most difficult tests HF could throw my way. Whenever I hear stories like this it seems they always end in good feelings and thankfulness, but when I hear stories of law suits and even when they win the bitterness and the hate remains, it does nothing to calm it down, maybe even inflame the hate and anger. Thanks for sharing. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

Thanks hon. I respect whatever decisions people make concerning things like this. I just don't want to have to feel like I'm having to defend a decision that my family and I made to pursue something. Perhaps others are more Christlike than I am. Our decision was made because we want a facility held accountable especially in light of past lawsuits against them and won. It's about finding answers as to why something was allowed to happen. It's about making them wake up and see that when you take on the responsibility of care for someone..that's exactly what it means.

I think the dangers of this though are taking on oneself a feeling of teaching someone else a lesson via punishment. I think it is appropriate and our duty to teach others who do wrong to do the right thing but not via punishment. It should be done with a loving, long-suffering, kind heart. I realize that is an overwhelming commandment, for me it is. I am quick to fight back and defend myself ... I'm sure I even show that side of myself on this forum. But ideally I don't think it is our duty or command to meet out punishment for people who do wrong. Maybe that is why this came to my attention, I know its something I have to work on.

In the end, God will hold all responsible for their sins, I don't think we have to worry about justice not being served.

[pam]

You have a right to your opinion and I can respect that. However, this feels like a chastisement of my decision and the decision of my family. And this was done after a long discussion with a former Bishop of mine and my family who is also in a pretty high status in the Utah justice system. So I will retain my right to my opinion as well.

[prisonchaplain]

My two-cents: The biblical admonitions to forgive, and to avoid lawsuits among the community of faith would not preclude receiving a settlement that included pain in suffering. Many years ago I was side-swiped by a church van. The driver did everything right. He jumped out and came over to see if I was all right. He admitted that he thought he was at a four-way stop (I had no stop sign). I did not go to court or hire a lawyer. Instead, the church's insurance offered me medical expenses + an amount for pain and suffering (chiropractic and massage therapy for about three months). I accepted it without argument.

Did I "deserve" the pain and suffering settlment? Well, I was discomforted. Had it not been offered, or had less been offered, I'd likely have been okay. The amount was generous, but not absurd. Some of it went towards comfort care I chose that was not covered by the medical care part.

I forgave the driver on site. Taking the settlement did not mitigate that. Had the church refused any responsiblity at all, or had it even turned around and falsely accused me of causing the accident, well...then we'd have a string to talk about. :-)

[Vort]

If the characters in the Christian book series Left Behind got swatted on their aforementioned left behind, would they turn the other cheek?

[Seminarysnoozer]

OK, I was given to understand that getting smitten on the right cheek means backhanded, or in otherwords is more an insult than physical pain. If someone is truly hurt, they have the right and the duty to fight back (at an attacker, in the moment) or pursue damages. Sometimes pursuing damages will cause others to have protection that the original victim did not have, as a bite to the wallet is often what gets things moving in a corporation.

When the judge awarded her with more than she'd needed or asked, what was she going to do, turn around and hand it back to the defending lawyer? Some injuries result in lifelong pain and suffering, how do you put a price on that?

I think the best action is to try to befriend the person that hurt you, in that scenario, and change their heart. In the heat of the moment, I agree you have to protect yourself, but after safety is reached I don't think it is our duty to pursue damages according to these scriptures. If the price to pay for the potential of protecting someone else is having anger in one's heart, then it is not worth it in the end. Or, in other words, is it worth risking your own heart to go after someone and potentially protect someone else? Maybe in some cases that is appropriate but then what you take on yourself is judgment and the risk of having hate in your heart.

"How do you put a price on that?" I think that is the point. How can we in our limited view put a price on any sin without having the authority to deal with it? I don't think we can. I think that is Gods job, to judge, if we take that on ourselves we are taking on God's authority and work. It's probably best to leave that to God's judgment than take a stab at it ourselves. By putting your hand on the Bible and saying in front of a jury, "that person should pay for their crimes" you are claiming to know everything about that person, what is in his/her heart, their intentions, their motivations and their understanding of the law (God's law). That is a lot to take on. I think if someone does something wrong against any of us it is better to say, I'll let the authorities figure it out, in a "give Ceaser what is Ceaser's" attitude. We are supposed to love those that curse us and pray for those that despitefully use us, right? I think if we are not a Judge or a police officer or someone in authority over that thing we are supposed to leave it alone. That is what I am contemplating, it seems that is what the scriptures are saying.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If the characters in the Christian book series Left Behind got swatted on their aforementioned left behind, would they turn the other cheek?

Depends on the direction of the swat. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

You have a right to your opinion and I can respect that. However, this feels like a chastisement of my decision and the decision of my family. And this was done after a long discussion with a former Bishop of mine and my family who is also in a pretty high status in the Utah justice system. So I will retain my right to my opinion as well.

If you are referring to my opinion, it is not established. This is why I bring this up. I am trying to understand how this fits with those scriptures. I don't know the details of your situation and I think it is difficult to make strong sweeping statements of any commandment, even "though shalt not kill" can have its discussion. On the other hand, I wouldn't use one exception to justify a general edict. I am thankful for your views because it helps shape mine and keep an open mind about all of this. Please don't take it as a chastisement of your decision and your family if you are talking about me, I am sure your Bishop and you and your family are correct in your decisions. I am just trying to understand.

[prisonchaplain]

Vort, you hit upon one of the criticisms of the series...because they probably would not have. On the other hand, do you understand Jesus' command to demand pacifism of us? Should we offer no self defense, or defense of family?

[Vort]

Vort, you hit upon one of the criticisms of the series...because they probably would not have. On the other hand, do you understand Jesus' command to demand pacifism of us? Should we offer no self defense, or defense of family?

PC, I was riffing off of the series ubertitle "Left Behind". I choose to interpret it as meaning "sinistral buttock" rather than "abandoned at the rapture". If they got slapped on their left behind, would they turn the other cheek? Ha ha ha.

[Generally_Me]

I think the best action is to try to befriend the person that hurt you, in that scenario, and change their heart.

Completely agree, I was just clarifying what I thought Jesus meant at the time. In a world where most people are right-handed, to be hit on the right cheek usually means you are being backhanded, which is/was considered more of an insult than an actual pain.

In the heat of the moment, I agree you have to protect yourself, but after safety is reached I don't think it is our duty to pursue damages according to these scriptures. If the price to pay for the potential of protecting someone else is having anger in one's heart, then it is not worth it in the end. Or, in other words, is it worth risking your own heart to go after someone and potentially protect someone else? Maybe in some cases that is appropriate but then what you take on yourself is judgment and the risk of having hate in your heart.

Who says you must have anger in your heart when you sue? I know of parents and grandparents who have sued with very heavy heart in a tough love scenario.

Picture this. A man works for a company that tells him to get the job done, period. So rather than using safety equipment and climbing a ladder (ladder they had was too short and the manager didn't want to go buy another) he climbs into the shovel part of a bulldozer and is lifted 12 feet by another employee controlling the dozer. He looses his balance and falls, breaking his neck. His family is left without an income, and without a father/husband.

Two scenarios: one, the company is insured and gives them a huge settlement to provide for the minors. Or, the company may fight payment every step of the way. But the widow has to provide somehow, so pursues a lawsuit when she otherwise might not have. Also, she now has legal fees, and the pain she had to drag her children through.

Is she wrong for pursuing the money when her husband did the unsafe act, even if his boss told him to? BTW, this is not a hypothetical situation. I know of someone in my business (though not my company) who was killed this way. In that situation, the widow did get the generous payout from the company's insurance. Should she not have?

The BoM has many stories about people taking their complaints to judges when it got out of hand. It is admirable when people are able to forgive and move on, but when someone could go bankrupt and starve due to another's actions, it is logical and moral to require that someone else to pay for it.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Is she wrong for pursuing the money when her husband did the unsafe act, even if his boss told him to? BTW, this is not a hypothetical situation. I know of someone in my business (though not my company) who was killed this way. In that situation, the widow did get the generous payout from the company's insurance. Should she not have?

The BoM has many stories about people taking their complaints to judges when it got out of hand. It is admirable when people are able to forgive and move on, but when someone could go bankrupt and starve due to another's actions, it is logical and moral to require that someone else to pay for it.

These questions are the questions I am asking. When the Bible says if someone takes your coat give him your cloak, it kind of sounds like that .... that you are to freeze to death before becoming angry. In a perfect world where everyone is living the gospel what would happen is the widow would say, "I would starve without his wages." Then the company would say, "We are not going to let that happen, here is enough to keep you from starving." But if the widow says, "you are going to pay for your negligence," that is a totally different thing. I think the key word in your example is 'pursue.' Maybe that is where the line is drawn. I think becoming bankrupt and starving may be the witness to the severity of that act and God takes the result of that action into account at judgment day. Otherwise if the price has been paid, the magnitude of the wrong is lessened there is no wrong. I think in that example, if the company paid all the wages he would have gotten for his work until retirement than that would be reasonable. From the employers side, if the payout is looked as punishment, then maybe she shouldn't have taken that portion above what was lost by his absence in terms of wages. I don't know. What do you think?

Would Joseph Smith's death mean something different if the church sued the state that led to his wrongful death and won a settlement? I think it would.

I think if a company settles, that is one thing, they could even be 'grieving with those that grieve', which is a good thing, but if they are paying reluctantly because the widow put pressure on the company surrounded by lawyers, that is a different thing. I am not sure, I am torn about what is morally right.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, I was riffing off of the series ubertitle "Left Behind". I choose to interpret it as meaning "sinistral buttock" rather than "abandoned at the rapture". If they got slapped on their left behind, would they turn the other cheek? Ha ha ha.

I guess I'm too close to the subject.

[Guest]

I did not read all of the posts. This is a discussion that is currently ongoing in my own family.

Last week, my uncle died. He was hit by a tri-cycle (in the Philippines, a tricycle is a motorbike with a sidecar that is used to carry passengers and cargo for a fare). The driver of the tricycle was carrying cargo in the cargo-hold located on the back of the sidecar. The driver thought the cargo was slipping, so he looked back to check on it and did not realize that he twisted the handlebars in the process to make the tri-cycle slide to the edge of the road where my uncle was walking. My uncle got hit by the tri-cycle and fell to the pavement, hitting his head on the hard concrete. He had brain surgery but it did not save him. My uncle and the rest of my mom's family live in a fishing village in the Philippines where most of the people are poor. My uncle's family cannot afford the brain surgery, although it only costs $6,000 (healthcare is much cheaper in the Philippines). The hospital will not release my uncle's body until the hospital is paid (about 1/3 of the total cost). The surgeon is not in a hurry to get his money, so we're okay there. The man who was driving the tri-cycle is even poorer. My uncle's family has asked him to help pay for the hospital and his response is he will just have to go to jail because he just doesn't have the money.

My sister looked into it and for that kind of case, the driver will probably end up staying less than 6 months in jail. She's very upset. She thinks the guy should spend 6 years, not 6 months, because if it was 6 years, he would try harder to find money. I disagreed. The man has a family to feed as well. He is barely making it with his tri-cycle business. 6 months in jail will cause his family to starve for 6 months. 6 years? Causing 2 families to go through extreme hardship is not proper judgement for the act. Because, I felt that there was no difference in the "intent" of the driver if he would have hit a tree versus hitting a person. I believe that him causing a person's death is eating at his conscience right now and is causing him real pain teaching him a very important life lesson. I believe that there is no positive difference between 6 months and 6 years of jail sentence because, 1.) it will not change the magnitude of regret that the man is feeling, 2.) it will not bring my uncle back, 3.) it will not pay for his medical bills.

My sister was very bitter when she exclaimed to me, what if it was my son he hit? I calmly answered, my feeling on the matter would be the same. I feel there is a fine line between "teaching somebody a lesson" and "getting revenge". I believe this has gone over to the revenge side of the aisle. There are many ways we can raise money for my uncle. I do not need a guy to go to jail for 6 years to scare him into paying it.

Edited November 12, 2009 by anatess