Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is it ever appropriate to be angry?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's maturity, for sure...I have similar experience. I'm generally not as easily angered. In my opinion a major component of that is improving empathy for others and also patience with myself. I think that anger in many cases was a symptom of ignorance in both areas. Like my mom says, anger was telling me something. Reflecting on it and working through it is loads different from burying it trying to forbid it.

Ya, there is definitely a BIG difference between burying anger and just not feeling it.

And that’s really what I am getting at with my post. Obviously it is righteous to feel anger but choose not to act on it. But is not more holy to take that extra step and remove it from our lives entirely?

This is not to say we should feel bad or condemn those who feel anger, after all it is a part of our mortal experience. I simply believe that the feeling of anger can be removed through Christ’s grace in such a way where we can act effectively, even in dire situations, without the feeling

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Fether said:

Could one learn to deal with such situations without becoming angry? And would we be better off taking that route if possible?

Nope.  There are times which require all out effort, including righteous anger.  Unless you are Gandhi or an Ammonihahite who has taken a vow of pacifism.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Fether said:

So you think evil, inequality, lack of fairness, and lack of love justifies anger?

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think anger should be resorted to in exceptional circumstances.

Both of these assertions seem to paint anger as an option we can pick, after we go thru some internal process or calculation.  And that might work for reactionary anger that follows certain (eg:thoughtless) human interactions.

But there is also the anger that coexists with that state of grief, that comes with profound, personal loss. I've lived with that anger for years at a time (due to years of regular, fresh losses). While there were some calculations and choices I could make (direct the anger inward rather than outward), I couldn't choose to not experience the realities of loss.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are times which require all out effort, including righteous anger.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this sounds like a process of creating and inserting anger where it otherwise wouldn't be. What sort of action requires generated anger?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Fether said:

And that’s really what I am getting at with my post. Obviously it is righteous to feel anger but choose not to act on it. But is not not even a more holy to take that extra step and remove it from our lives?

Many years ago in a church sponsored marriage relations class, it was taught that anger is a secondary emotion.  We must stop and think about why we are feeling the anger.  It may be due to the initial emotion of surprise, disappointment, or even something rooted in experiences of early childhood.  But I am not a psychiatrist or a counselor.

Elder Bednar gave a terrific talk about being acted upon as opposed to choosing act with thoughtful deliberation.  There are many levels in which we can respond.  Celestial people can be empathetic enough to know how to relate to telestial people in ways they can understand and have a better chance of peaceful resolution.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  There are times which require all out effort, including righteous anger.  Unless you are Gandhi or an Ammonihahite who has taken a vow of pacifism.

Interesting. I honestly believe that anger is not required to execute a needed action, even in the direst and most dangerous situations.

I also disagree with the idea that overcoming anger is synonymous with being a pacifist. Again, I dont think anger is a prerequisite to necessary violence

Link to comment
6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Schizoid Personality Disorder
Schizotypal Personality Disorder
Schizophrenia
Sociopathic Personality Disorder
Psychopathic Personality Disorder

Just an aside, It's a myth that people with these disorder don't feel or experience anger. They often just have a different/poor way of expressing it.

May be better to describe a robot or an amoeba.  ;) ...or at least something without enough self-awareness to recognize that they don't like an experience happening to them. 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Chum said:

But there is also the anger that coexists with that state of grief, that comes with profound, personal loss.

I don’t know that I agree that anger is the natural outcome of grief or loss. No matter how profound. Yes, it may foster it a great deal and the vast majority of the population may resort to anger in a reasonable and justifiable way… but I wouldn’t say that if you experience grief or profound loss that you the HAVE to experience anger.

Again, I’m not saying that we should feel bad for these domino affect emotions. They are weaknesses that are part of mortality. I’m saying that we can overcome this weakness of resorting to feelings of anger.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fether said:

So you think evil, inequality, lack of fairness, and lack of love justifies anger?

Yes. 

Soon after writing the post, I thought of it this way:

Anger is the vehicle of justice; Love and compassion is the GPS and steering wheel to guide the vehicle. Having a good balance between the two gives you the capacity to move to a better world. If you have GPS without a vehicle you're not going to move very quickly or it may be impossible to reach a destination in the needed time. If you have a vehicle with out a steering wheel/gps you'll like get lost or crash in your anger. 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes. 

Soon after writing the post, I thought of it this way:

Anger is the vehicle of justice; Love and compassion is the GPS and steering wheel to guide the vehicle. Having a good balance between the two gives you the capacity to move to a better world. If you have GPS without a vehicle you're not going to move very quickly or it may be impossible to reach a destination in the needed time. If you have a vehicle with out a steering wheel/gps you'll like get lost or crash in your anger. 

 

With luv,

BD

Interesting. I don’t know that I agree that justice requires anger, but it is an interesting thought

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fether said:

Interesting. I honestly believe that anger is not required to execute a needed action, even in the direst and most dangerous situations.

I also disagree with the idea that overcoming anger is synonymous with being a pacifist. Again, I dont think anger is a prerequisite to necessary violence

So how far does one go in assertiveness, while remaining cool as a cucumber?  The Bible itself depicts God as being angry on occasion.  Is that a divine flaw?  Or, are only deities allowed to get angry?

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Don't say that to a Viking berserker.

Berserkers were depending on who you ask any or all of the following:

Masters of intimidation and psychological warfare
Drunk
High
Channelling a form of PTSD
ingesting hallucinogenics

I suspect the hallucinogenics are the most likely with the stories of not being able to tell friend from foe. It wasn’t anger that made them dangerous. I fought someone once who was very very high. I was scared. Not because he was angry but because he wasn’t feeling pain. This was bad for him as he wouldn’t know when to retreat or back down but also bad for me since even if I did something that should end the fight he might keep going even if he were tearing his own body to shreds. I knew hurting him wouldn’t make him stop.

For a scriptural example you have Teancum. When he assassinated Amalickiah he was methodical and brought his servant with him and seems to have had a plan. When he assassinated Ammoron he went in angry and alone and that is arguably why he didn’t make it back.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Berserkers were depending on who you ask any or all of the following:

Masters of intimidation and psychological warfare
Drunk
High
Channelling a form of PTSD
ingesting hallucinogenics

I suspect the hallucinogenics are the most likely with the stories of not being able to tell friend from foe. It wasn’t anger that made them dangerous. I fought someone once who was very very high. I was scared. Not because he was angry but because he wasn’t feeling pain. This was bad for him as he wouldn’t know when to retreat or back down but also bad for me since even if I did something that should end the fight he might keep going even if he were tearing his own body to shreds. I knew hurting him wouldn’t make him stop.

For a scriptural example you have Teancum. When he assassinated Amalickiah he was methodical and brought his servant with him and seems to have had a plan. When he assassinated Ammoron he went in angry and alone and that is arguably why he didn’t make it back.

Don't forget gamma rays from your list

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So how far does one go in assertiveness, while remaining cool as a cucumber?  The Bible itself depicts God as being angry on occasion.  Is that a divine flaw?  Or, are only deities allowed to get angry?

Well firstly I don’t really think we have a grasp as to what God’s anger and wrath looks like. I highly doubt it is similar to what we feel… but I don’t know.

as far as how far go while remaining cool. I think as far as we can. And then we continuously work to not be overcome with anger

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 I was just pointing out to Fether that God gets angry and takes action based on that anger.  Is that O.K.?

It isn't clear how your post below was really referencing God's anger and not humans'.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  There are times which require all out effort, including righteous anger.  Unless you are Gandhi or an Ammonihahite who has taken a vow of pacifism.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Chum said:

 

Both of these assertions seem to paint anger as an option we can pick, after we go thru some internal process or calculation. 

As an option we can control.

4 hours ago, Chum said:

And that might work for reactionary anger that follows certain (eg:thoughtless) human interactions.

But there is also the anger that coexists with that state of grief, that comes with profound, personal loss. I've lived with that anger for years at a time (due to years of regular, fresh losses). While there were some calculations and choices I could make (direct the anger inward rather than outward), I couldn't choose to not experience the realities of loss.

Is not anger one of many options in response to loss? 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Fether said:

I don’t know that I agree that anger is the natural outcome of grief or loss. No matter how profound. Yes, it may foster it a great deal and the vast majority of the population may resort to anger in a reasonable and justifiable way… but I wouldn’t say that if you experience grief or profound loss that you the HAVE to experience anger.

Well, okay. Using 'natural outcome' to imply one must always follow the other - that would be a debatable scenario because it isn't how emotions work. Absolutism just isn't a great position from which to consider the fluidity of emotions.

All that said, it is commonly expected for people to experience anger as a companion to grief. There are always exceptions because, well, you know. People.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As an option we can control.

You believe you can choose which emotions you feel following traumatic loss? That is really odd. Perhaps unfortunate.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is not anger one of many options in response to loss? 

This almost sounds trivial. The sentiment certainly seems to be missing the weight these emotions bring.

When navigating deeply profound trauma and loss, attempting to choose which emotions one isn't going to feel - that seems like an unproductive exercise. Grief is grief. It and all that goes with it need to be transited.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, longview said:

Geronimo was a fierce warrior.  He had plenty to be angry about.

Geronimo was more raider than warrior. He “fought” whole campaigns by just avoiding the enemy. That might make him smart and wily but it is not the way angry people fight. Then again when there was plunder that guy knew how to torture and mutilate people. I kind of hope his butchery was driven by anger. Doing that out of ruthless pragmatism is a little dark.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...