Anger

[Thinking]

36 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think we should ever get angry unless there is something that we really can't tolerate and our actions against it would cause it to stop.  But, still, my main point is that we should rarely get angry, preferring instead to be more tactful and diplomatic with trying to stop thins that we can not tolerate, or do not want to tolerate.

When I was still active, I had a calling that involved the 11 year old boys. On one occasion one of the boys started punching another boy who was now on the floor with the puncher on top. I grabbed the puncher and pulled him off. I was angry, but the only physical force I used was to pull the puncher off and keep him from attacking again. I notified the bishop so we could figure out how to resolve the situation. Later that week the puncher's mother asked for a meeting. She told me that I handled it all wrong, that I should have talked/convinced her son to stop punching and that I never should have restrained him because he doesn't respond well to physical force. I told her that while I understand that her son needed to be disciplined/corrected in a certain way, at the time my first priority was to keep him from hurting the other boy. She disagreed. Her son never came back.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly.  On those occasions where I have maintained my cool, I have prevailed.  However, when I have not remained calm, I have paid a price.  Even when you are in the right, it might not be wise to respond in anger.  I think that is primarily because the Holy Ghost is grieved by anger, and will flee from you.

What you are describing is a response to anger, not the emotion itself.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When I was still active, I had a calling that involved the 11 year old boys. On one occasion one of the boys started punching another boy who was now on the floor with the puncher on top. I grabbed the puncher and pulled him off. I was angry, but the only physical force I used was to pull the puncher off and keep him from attacking again. I notified the bishop so we could figure out how to resolve the situation. Later that week the puncher's mother asked for a meeting. She told me that I handled it all wrong, that I should have talked/convinced her son to stop punching and that I never should have restrained him because he doesn't respond well to physical force. I told her that while I understand that her son needed to be disciplined/corrected in a certain way, at the time my first priority was to keep him from hurting the other boy. She disagreed. Her son never came back.

From your description, she was in the wrong to expect you to allow the violence to be prolonged just to try to see the boy respond to verbal interference. You feeling angry is perfectly understandable, and pulling off an attacker is a choice not dependent on anger. The mother's response was unfortunate. I hope her approach to violence has corrected since.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Ahab]

On 11/1/2019 at 8:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

In the real world, there are actually people who claim that anger is bad, thus finding fault with both God and little children. 

I believe anger is bad only if the reason someone is angry is not a good reason for anyone to get angry.  There are things that should anger all of us.

On 11/1/2019 at 8:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, if children (and animals) are innocent, can they be faulted for being angry? 

Only if they get angry for something they should not get angry about.

On 11/1/2019 at 8:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Your answer to Calm's question about being angry with children also applies:  In the real world, children discover right away that anger is normal.  They get angry and so do their parents and siblings. 

Again I would like to clarify that there is a difference between getting angry and getting upset.  I have difficulty envisioning a 2 year old getting angry.  They don't really know the difference between good and evil yet, so I think what  you may be thinking of as them getting "angry" is what I would call them getting "upset", which to me is different than anger.  I know they get upset a lot when they do not get their own way, but I don't think any of them have ever felt what I would call anger.  If they do I'm sure it's not a righteous anger aimed at trying to get someone to stop doing something bad, because they don't know what bad or evil is yet.  

On 11/1/2019 at 8:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Is it thus a normal and acceptable thing to be angry?  What are the limits? 

Acceptable to who?  Different people have different limits and different likes and dislikes.Some people want to do bad things and they don't like it when someone tries to stop them from doing something bad.  Bad actions should be stopped anyway, though.  And nobody should want to stop anyone from doing something good, so any anger directed at doing something good to try to get something bad to stop should be seen as a good thing.

On 11/1/2019 at 8:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Do children learn that striking someone is O.K. when there is anger? 

Some do, and some don't. Some learn they can use violence to get their own way, even when what they want is something bad, and they get angry at anyone who tries to stop them from doing something bad.  Meanwhile, good guys try to stop bad guys from doing bad things.

On 11/1/2019 at 8:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course I have my own answers to those questions.  However, the answers will differ among various POVs.  Who is correct?

The people on the right side of the issues are the ones who are correct.  The people with the corrupt point of view are usually the people who want to do or support bad behavior, which good guys are usually opposed to.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

You seem to have a habit of wanting to libel other people.  In the future I would appreciate it if you would seek clarification from me about what I mean or how I would go about disciplining my own children when you think I might be talking about acting like you think would be in some horrible way.  I would certainly do a much better job of communicating with my children than you communicated with me in your post.  

Maybe it would help you to know that I am happy when my children do good things, so me being happy with how my children act is just a reflection of my realization that they are doing good things.  And on the flip side, I am not happy when they do bad things, so when they do something bad I show them and tell them and explain to them why Daddy isn't happy with them doing bad things.  There is and there has been nothing wrong with me acting this way.  The flip side would be for me to act happy when they do bad things and upset with them when they do good things, which is silly and makes no good sense whatsoever.  How do you imagine interacting with your own children when and if you ever have any children, someday?  And how do you think our Father in heaven feels when you do good things, or bad things?  Do you think he is happy with you when you go bad things?  Or upset with you when you do good things?  

Again, the whole thing is about you and your feelings on how they act. That is not healthy parenting.

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Maybe you missed it or misunderstood what I meant when I said I rarely get angry.  It's been years, as far as I remember.  I do get upset fairly often though, with a feeling of frustration or disappointment, usually when I notice people doing or saying bad or stupid things.  Sometimes instead of getting upset my sense of humor will kick in and I will think it is funny when I notice people say or do something bad or stupid, but sometimes I admit that I actually do get upset just from noticing people say or do stupid things, even when what they are doing isn't anything personal against me.  And I think this is perfectly normal, and good, otherwise... what... how else should a person respond or feel when they notice other people doing bad or stupid things?  Happy about seeing that kind of behavior?  Do you feel happy when you notice people doing bad or stupid things?  Does that give you some kind of pleasure?  And how do you respond when you see people say or do good and righteous things?  Do you get upset with those people? 

You're talking about some other kind of person if you are thinking of me as some kind of abuser.  And I think you owe me an apology for your unrighteous judgment against me.  Not that I ever expect to get it from you but I think you are the one in the wrong here and I do not appreciate your libelous accusations against me.  I hope you will try to be a better judge of what people say and do in the future.

This post supports my theory. Where is the empathy? When people do bad things your primary focus is on how you feel about it and how it changed how you feel.

No apology will be forthcoming. Your posts are often creepy and off. I am not the only one who notices this. So is it that everyone else is a bad listener?

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When I was still active, I had a calling that involved the 11 year old boys. On one occasion one of the boys started punching another boy who was now on the floor with the puncher on top. I grabbed the puncher and pulled him off. I was angry, but the only physical force I used was to pull the puncher off and keep him from attacking again. I notified the bishop so we could figure out how to resolve the situation. Later that week the puncher's mother asked for a meeting. She told me that I handled it all wrong, that I should have talked/convinced her son to stop punching and that I never should have restrained him because he doesn't respond well to physical force. I told her that while I understand that her son needed to be disciplined/corrected in a certain way, at the time my first priority was to keep him from hurting the other boy. She disagreed. Her son never came back.

I would have told her the person her son was beating on didn't respond very well to force, either.  That he was  getting beat on and that her son was the one who was beating on him, and that he was getting hurt by her son beating on him.  (repeated as many times as necessary until she got the message that her son was beating on another person, with me looking for an expression on her face to show me she realized her son was doing a bad thing by beating on another person).  And then I would have told her that maybe next time we'll see him beating on her and that if she wants us to we will let her son continue to beat on her until we can talk him out of it somehow, maybe while listening to her to see if there are some special magic words we are supposed to use to try to talk him out of beating up on another person.

Stupid can not be fixed, other than by trying to say something intelligent that a person will pick up on to cure themselves of their own stupidity.  But if they're too stupid to realize what intelligence is when they hear it, they are then left to go on in their own stupidity.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When I was still active, I had a calling that involved the 11 year old boys. On one occasion one of the boys started punching another boy who was now on the floor with the puncher on top. I grabbed the puncher and pulled him off. I was angry, but the only physical force I used was to pull the puncher off and keep him from attacking again. I notified the bishop so we could figure out how to resolve the situation. Later that week the puncher's mother asked for a meeting. She told me that I handled it all wrong, that I should have talked/convinced her son to stop punching and that I never should have restrained him because he doesn't respond well to physical force. I told her that while I understand that her son needed to be disciplined/corrected in a certain way, at the time my first priority was to keep him from hurting the other boy. She disagreed. Her son never came back.

It takes a miracle not to respond well to physical force. The laws of physics tend to be cruel to those who seek to ignore them.

I know that is not what she meant but I probably would have said that......and gotten released. On an unrelated note I am subbing for Primary next week.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Again, the whole thing is about you and your feelings on how they act. That is not healthy parenting.

This post supports my theory. Where is the empathy? When people do bad things your primary focus is on how you feel about it and how it changed how you feel.

No, I was talking about how I feel when I notice my children doing bad things, but that is not the whole thing here.  Another part that you are not mentioning much is the fact that my children are doing bad things and I am trying to get them to stop doing those bad things.

While I am doing that, trying to stop them from doing bad things, I don't ignore their bad behavior, saying nothing about it.  I don''t dismiss my own feelings about the bad things they are doing when I notice they are doing bad things.  I talk to them about how I feel and what I have noticed, and they in turn talk to me too, and together we try to work out a solution that both of us can be happy about.  Otherwise if they continue to do bad things and do not try to stop doing those bad things we are going to get into a situation that they will not be happy with, because I will simply not tolerate them doing bad things in my presence without trying to get them to stop.

So my primary focus is to get my children to stop doing bad things, when I notice them doing bad things.  I also applaud them and compliment them on the good things I see them do, too. And I think they would agree that they would rather make me happy than angry.

It isn't all about how I feel.  It is about the choices they make and how I feel about them.  If you want to use our Father in heaven as an example, realize that at some point if we keep doing bad things that we will not get to go home.

He has us out of his house, now, and unless we do nothing but good things we will not get to go back to live with him ever again.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

I believe anger is bad only if the reason someone is angry is not a good reason for anyone to get angry.  There are things that should anger all of us.

Only if they get angry for something they should not get angry about.

I was asking about children and animals, neither of whom can be faulted for their anger.  The animals never, and the children until they reach the age of accountability.  That does not mean that a parent cannot discipline a child appropriately.  They have a lot to learn, as does your pet dog.

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Again I would like to clarify that there is a difference between getting angry and getting upset.  I have difficulty envisioning a 2 year old getting angry.  They don't really know the difference between good and evil yet, so I think what  you may be thinking of as them getting "angry" is what I would call them getting "upset", which to me is different than anger.  I know they get upset a lot when they do not get their own way, but I don't think any of them have ever felt what I would call anger.  If they do I'm sure it's not a righteous anger aimed at trying to get someone to stop doing something bad, because they don't know what bad or evil is yet.  .........................

A child in his terrible twos isn't going to distinguish between upset and anger.  They are indistinguishable.  Semantics won't help at all.  Children need to know that anger is normal, and they must learn how to govern themselves.  It will make their lives much happier.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What you are describing is a response to anger, not the emotion itself.

Actually, no.  I could have responded in anger, but I found myself on each occasion lacking in anger, which gave me the power to deal with the attack with the Holy Spirit assisting me.  This is usually though of as sublimation of anger.  The same thing can happen on the road when someone cuts you off or otherwise acts like a fool.  Road rage is self-defeating.  One needs instant humility and an avoidance response instead.  Could save your life.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, no.  I could have responded in anger, but I found myself on each occasion lacking in anger, which gave me the power to deal with the attack with the Holy Spirit assisting me.  This is usually though of as sublimation of anger.  The same thing can happen on the road when someone cuts you off or otherwise acts like a fool.  Road rage is self-defeating.  One needs instant humility and an avoidance response instead.  Could save your life.

I won't speak for your experience.

In general, sublimation frames anger itself as an impulse, a sort of command we feel, which one then (as you seem to be describing it) replaces with a more preferable response. I do agree that replacement is better than violence, most of the time. (The possible example of forceful self-defence being extraordinary and rare nowadays.)

But that is seeing anger as a command one refuses or neglects. I would say that framing anger as a feeling alone introduces it to healthier processing of it: it's no longer an objective itself, but merely a *completed* expression from our bodies and minds. We are responsible for this feeling within ourselves. It is our job to identify it, and to try to be aware of the relationship between it and any internal or external experience. That awareness can then be applied in more long-term management than instant sublimation. 

I do think that, given some self awareness, sublimation can lead to this framing, eventually, so it can also be a good intermediate step.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was asking about children and animals, neither of whom can be faulted for their anger.  The animals never, and the children until they reach the age of accountability.  That does not mean that a parent cannot discipline a child appropriately.  They have a lot to learn, as does your pet dog.

A child in his terrible twos isn't going to distinguish between upset and anger.  They are indistinguishable.  Semantics won't help at all.  Children need to know that anger is normal, and they must learn how to govern themselves.  It will make their lives much happier.

I think I would be able to tell the difference, though, even given the fact that each person handles their emotions differently.  Some are more introverted while others are more extroverted.  So if I saw my own 2 year old child getting angry simply because he wasn't getting his way, rather than because he was trying to uphold righteousness, I would have a much different interaction with that child than if he was only getting upset and frustrated but not full on rage angry.  Someone who is only upset can usually come to terms on his own when things don't go as he would like them to go, but someone who gets angry simply because he doesn't get whatever he wants from others, with no regard for righteousness, often needs some form of intervention and counseling to help him learn how to not get so angry about things like that.  We shouldn't get angry just because we don't get whatever we want, especially not when what we want is something unrighteous.  

As I said before, I believe anger is bad only if the reason someone is angry is not a good reason for anyone to get angry... so basically the only good time to get angry is when trying to uphold righteousness when someone else is acting in a very aggressively unrighteous way. 

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think I would be able to tell the difference...

You are not 2 years old either, and I think most adults would have a hard time distinguishing the difference in many cases. 

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As I said before, I believe anger is bad only if the reason someone is angry is not a good reason for anyone to get angry... 

I disagree.  Feelings are never morally right or wrong.  It is the perceptions/judgments/values that precipitate our feelings that are morally right or wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

..............................  

As I said before, I believe anger is bad only if the reason someone is angry is not a good reason for anyone to get angry... so basically the only good time to get angry is when trying to uphold righteousness when someone else is acting in a very aggressively unrighteous way. 

Right or wrong anger is always a matter of opinion.  A value judgment which merely confuses people.  Good anger, bad anger.  Who's to say who is right?

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are not 2 years old either, and I think most adults would have a hard time distinguishing the difference in many cases. 

I disagree.  Feelings are never morally right or wrong.  It is the perceptions/judgments/values that precipitate our feelings that are morally right or wrong.

We disagree.  Oh well  Let's move on.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Right or wrong anger is always a matter of opinion.  A value judgment which merely confuses people.  Good anger, bad anger.  Who's to say who is right?

My whole reason for wanting to be a good Christian is receive my guidance from God.  Sometimes he speaks to me through the words of other people, when giving me his assurances of what is right and wrong, but still that is what I am all about. 

God is the one who is right and I seek to align myself to his will and his mind on each and every issue because I know that God is always right and I want to be exactly like he is.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Ahab

[MustardSeed]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My whole reason for wanting to be a good Christian is receive my guidance from God.  Sometimes he speaks to me through the words of other people, when giving me his assurances of what is right and wrong, but still that is what I am all about. 

God is the one who is right and I seek to align myself to his will and his mind on each and every issue because I know that God is always right and I want to be exactly like he is.

Well since God is telling you the answers I guess discussion is over. 

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Well since God is telling you the answers I guess discussion is over. 

If it is your goal is to change my mind about what God has told me.  You should have never even attempted to have a discussion with me if that was ever your goal.

[MustardSeed]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If it is your goal is to change my mind about what God has told me.  You should have never even attempted to have a discussion with me if that was ever your goal.

I'm not looking to change your mind.  It seems as such a task would be pointless with you.

 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I'm not looking to change your mind.  It seems as such a task would be pointless with you.

 

I'm still open to receiving more information from God, and I realize he sometimes speaks through other people while assuring me that what they are saying is good and true.

You might want to do something like that.  You might try to share something with me that maybe God hasn't told me about, yet.  I share things God has told me just in case anyone else might be interested in something like that.

Just don't waste your time, or my time, trying to change my mind about something God has already told me.  Okay?  I don't think that is too much to ask and we still might end up finding some interesting things to talk about here.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I'm still open to receiving more information from God, and I realize he sometimes speaks through other people while assuring me that what they are saying is good and true.

You might want to do something like that.  You might try to share something with me that maybe God hasn't told me about, yet.  I share things God has told me just in case anyone else might be interested in something like that.

Just don't waste your time, or my time, trying to change my mind about something God has already told me.  Okay?  I don't think that is too much to ask and we still might end up finding some interesting things to talk about here.

Edited November 5, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

If it is your goal is to change my mind about what God has told me.  You should have never even attempted to have a discussion with me if that was ever your goal.

Reminds me of another Ahab, Captain Ahab:

Quote

Ahab, the Pequod’s obsessed captain, represents both an ancient and a quintessentially modern type of hero. Like the heroes of Greek or Shakespearean tragedy, Ahab suffers from a single fatal flaw, one he shares with such legendary characters as Oedipus and Faust. His tremendous overconfidence, or hubris, leads him to defy common sense and believe that, like a god, he can enact his will and remain immune to the forces of nature.  https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/moby****/character/ahab/ .

 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reminds me of another Ahab, Captain Ahab:

 

Seems like everybody should think the same way in this regard.  And it does not involve any overconfidence, or any desire to try to defy common sense.

When God tells you something, are you ever open to having some other person change your mind about what it was that God told you?  

I mean, if God spoke to you and you understood what God said and what he meant when God spoke to you, how would some other person trying to get you to change your mind about what God said, and what you understood God to say, do you or that other person any good?

I'd be surprised to find out you are open to having someone change your mind about what God has told you.  Why would you ever want to do that?

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Seems like everybody should think the same way in this regard.  And it does not involve any overconfidence, or any desire to try to defy common sense.

When God tells you something, are you ever open to having some other person change your mind about what it was that God told you?  

I mean, if God spoke to you and you understood what God said and what he meant when God spoke to you, how would some other person trying to get you to change your mind about what God said, and what you understood God to say, do you or that other person any good?

I'd be surprised to find out you are open to having someone change your mind about what God has told you.  Why would you ever want to do that?

Here's my personal opinion, based on my particulars.  

I think following God's direction is something we should all do.
 

I also think that when people use "well God told me I'm right" - said out loud - that it comes across as arrogant, manipulative, and closed minded.

Follow God's direction by all means.  When you're interacting on a discussion board, it might behoove you to note that this is how you're coming across, even when you don't intend to.

Edited November 5, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Here's my personal opinion, based on my particulars.  

I think following God's direction is something we should all do.

Good.  Nice to finally see you say something like this.

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I also think that when people use "well God told me I'm right" - said out loud - that it comes across as arrogant, manipulative, and closed minded.

I didn't use those words in that way and I don't appreciate you framing my comments in that context.  

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Follow God's direction by all means.  When you're interacting on a discussion board, it might behoove you to note that this is how you're coming across, even when you don't intend to.

In my perspective, when someone says someone else is being arrogant, it is usually the person who is saying someone else is arrogant that is the one who is being arrogant.  Try instead to judge how you would want to be  judged.

I can see that you have judged me unfairly, and even though it happens a lot and a lot of people do it, that does not excuse that type of judgment against another person.  

My main message to you was that it would be a waste of your time, and my time, if you were to try to change my mind about something God has told me.  And I think you should feel the same way about something God has told you.