Is it ever appropriate to be angry?

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It wasn't.  A later post.

Ohhh. A post from the future. Now I'm conflicted. I should have considered that yet the Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible.

[Chum]

26 minutes ago, longview said:

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

Oh you got got there.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Well, dad is dead. I think I will go with a bit of sorrow, a small amount of remorse for the last thing I said, a touch of bittersweet, and spice it with some joviality for the inheritance money. Hold the anger, no sense blaming anyone. I mean….dad’s murderer could have chosen to kill anyone. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Don't say that to a Viking berserker.

Weren’t they known for killing their own people at times in their frenzy?  Great for intimidation of the enemy, bet it was rotten for morale of the home team though,

Edited April 19, 2022 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

Ohhh. A post from the future. Now I'm conflicted. I should have considered that yet the Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible.

No.  Simply a post you did not look at, but which was already posted when you reacted to a previous post.  Here it is:

 

Quote

4 hours ago

7 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?

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Fether said:

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

I think that one purpose of Christ's grace would be to be able to act well despite feeling anger. That can be a very good experience.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Chum said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

{Fether}: So you think evil, inequality, lack of fairness, and lack of love justifies anger?

Quote

{Smac}: I think anger should be resorted to in exceptional circumstances.

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

{Smac}: As an option we can control.

{Chum}: You believe you can choose which emotions you feel following traumatic loss?

To an extent, yes.  Anger is an emotional response.  It can be tempered.  It can be controlled.  It can be subdued.

Moreover, we can also control how we express that emotional response.

11 hours ago, Chum said:

That is really odd. Perhaps unfortunate.

I don't think it is either odd or unfortunate.

As a father to my infant first son, I had a number of middle-of-the-night experiences where I, in a moment of sheer exhaustion and irritability, became frustrated / annoyed / irritated - angry? - at my son who was up crying. However, because I had an excellent wife, and "having been born of goodly parents," and for other reasons, I was able to control and subdue that emotional response, and to gently and lovingly and patiently care for my son until he fell asleep again.  No annoyed looks.  No harsh words.  No violence.  No expression of the inner-held feelings I was experiencing at 3:00 a.m.  By the time I was going through these efforts with my sixth and youngest child, I noticed that I was markedly better at it.  I had, through time and experience and concerted effort, improved my capacity to control the expression of my emotional response to the point where the emotional response itself was mitigated and reduced, even often entirely eliminated.

I have been a lawyer for about 19 years now.  In years past I was more susceptible to letting my emotions affect my approach to practicing law, whether it be during telephone calls with opposing counsel, or during a mediation session, or at a hearing, or at trial.  In particular, I occasionally let "anger" get the better of me, usually to the detriment of my performance as an advocate for my client.  These days, however, such experiences are substantially fewer and farther between, and lesser in severity.  I just don't get angry very often, and when I do I am able to control my expression of it far better than in years past.

There are many, many such experiences I have had over time.  Anger has its place in our lives, but it must be had and expressed in the proper time, place and manner.

11 hours ago, Chum said:

Quote

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.

Not at all.  I am merely being clinical.  I recognize that anger is a powerful emotion.  So is grief.  So is despair.

My point, nevertheless, is that these responses - and our expressions of them - can be mitigated and controlled.

11 hours ago, Chum said:

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.

Emotions will come as they may.  But what we do with them, how we express them, how we control and direct them, is an important skill set.  An integral part of putting off the natural man.

The Church teaches this all the time.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

“Only we can control our appetites and passions. …

“In its simplest terms, self-mastery is doing those things we should do and not doing those things we should not do. It requires strength, willpower, and honesty. …

“One of the great foundations of personal power is purity. … With all my heart I urge you wonderful young people not to take a secret shame with you to your marriage. You may never be able to forget it. You will want to go through life with the strength that comes from a clear conscience, which will permit you one day to stand before your Maker and say, ‘My soul is pure.’ Self-denial is not restrictive. It is liberating. It is the pathway to freedom. It is strength. It is an essential element of purity” (Ensign, May 2000, 44).

—President James E. Faust
Second Counselor in the First Presidency

And here (from Lesson 30 of "The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A," entitled "Developing and Teaching Self-Mastery."

Quote

Our appetites and passions are like a spirited, powerful horse. If they are allowed to run wild, unharnessed and unbroken, they will take us where they please. They may take us to dangerous and harmful places. But we would not destroy a fine horse just because it is high-spirited. When bridled so that we become master, the horse can serve us well. Likewise, when we become master over our desires and feelings, we learn to redirect them within the bounds of the gospel. These feelings then become our servants. They can increase our ability to feel joy and love.

And here:

Quote

President David O. McKay (1873–1970) taught that because of the Fall we have a dual nature: “One, related to the earthly or animal life; the other, akin to the Divine. Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whims of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life.”

And here:

Quote

It would be a cruel trick indeed if the Lord had told us to keep our appetites and passions within certain bounds and then hadn’t placed us in charge of those appetites. We have not only the responsibility but also the capacity to behave in the way the Lord has commanded. Claims to the contrary are rationalizations.

And here:

Quote

Because no unclean thing can dwell in God’s presence (see Moses 6:57), we work daily on genuine spiritual transformation—in our thoughts, our desires, and our behavior. In the words of the Apostle Paul, we seek to become new creatures in Christ, gradually replacing our old self with a new self (see 2 Corinthians 5:17). This change comes line upon line as we strive to be a little better every day.

Following the Savior by trying to become like Him is a process of self-denial, which He has defined as taking up our cross (see Matthew 16:24–26). We take up our cross as we:

• Control our desires, appetites, and passions.

• Patiently “submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon” us (Mosiah 3:19).

• Deny ourselves of all ungodliness (see Moroni 10:32).

• Submit our will to the will of the Father, as the Savior did.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 19, 2022 by smac97

[longview]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I have read a biography of Geronimo years ago.  It was fascinating to learn he engaged in a large scale battle with Mexican soldiers down south.  He fought so fiercely that the soldiers greatly despaired and they took to loudly pleading for help from their patron saint Jerome.  This is how he got his name!

Edited April 19, 2022 by longview

[Chum]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

On 4/19/2022 at 12:32 AM, Chum said:

{Chum}: You believe you can choose which emotions you feel following traumatic loss?

To an extent, yes.  Anger is an emotional response.  It can be tempered.  It can be controlled.  It can be subdued.

This answer is a good one for what to do with anger that can't be avoided.  There's no hint there that - when faced with deep personal grief, we can make a trivial choice, one that makes the accompanying anger go *pOoF*.

On 4/19/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

As a father to my infant first son, I had a number of middle-of-the-night experiences where I, in a moment of sheer exhaustion and irritability, became frustrated / annoyed / irritated - angry? - at my son who was up crying.

It's a good example of episodic, reactionary anger.  I appreciate the time you put into how one might approach it.

However, I am addressing the anger that accompanies deep, personal grief - a deeply different experience. My clear point has been that we can't opt out of it.  Doing things that might have some impact on that anger - that isn't opting out.  It's closer to an admission that we must endure the process.

[Jaydes]

Appropriate, perhaps, but being angry with another individual is a sin. 

[jkwilliams]

On 4/17/2022 at 11:01 AM, Meadowchik said:

There's nothing wrong with feeling anger or being angry. Anger is an emotion and it just is. 

The key is to respond appropriately to the emotion. What is an appropriate response to anger? It depends on the situation. But first and foremost, there needs to be the self awareness, "I am angry," and the awareness that it may or may not correspond directly to whatever seems to be drawing our attention in the moment. 

Maybe you're angry at fussy kids during sacrament meeting because you've attached yourself to the idea that their noise level corresponds to your parenting skills.

Maybe someone hurt you through no fault of their own and deserve none of your ire.

Maybe someone hurt you through negligence or abuse and your anger is a necessary defense against them harming you further.

My mom taught me that anger often serves one of two purposes:

Teaches us something about ourselves.

And/or 

Motivates us to resist and even fight against evil.

 

 

I don’t understand these threads. It’s like asking if it’s appropriate to be happy or sad. Human emotions are normal. 

[BlueDreams]

On 4/18/2022 at 7:32 PM, Fether said:

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

I build this off of how wrath especially is described in the scriptures. God is described as being "slow to anger" multiple times in scripture....but not that God has no anger. When this anger is express via wrath, it is in a form of bring out some form of punishment (justice) against a sinful people who continue to resist repentance and most often would impede the spiritual/physical health of God's people. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t understand these threads. It’s like asking if it’s appropriate to be happy or sad. Human emotions are normal. 

Part of me can kinda get it. 

1.) people generally don't enjoy being the recipient of or experiencing anger. It's not a highly valued experience or trait in others. 

2.) Spiritual growth and change have reduced the circumstances that get me angry. I assume I'm not that rare in finding that the process of conversion and spiritual refining changes how one responds to things. 

I can see how someone could put these two together and assume the end goal is to be rid of anger all together. Particularly if they haven't regularly witnessed or personally experienced processing anger in circumstances that are more justified/necessary. I believe most don't have to stare evil circumstances directly in the face very often. I'm glad for them in that. It's just not what I experience in my life. Just this week I've had 2 experiences with others anger that was extremely justified and needed to be heard and understood. 

 

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

On 4/28/2022 at 9:45 AM, Jaydes said:

Appropriate, perhaps, but being angry with another individual is a sin. 

Is it, or is acting with the malice of anger the sin?

[The Nehor]

Quote

It would be a cruel trick indeed if the Lord had told us to keep our appetites and passions within certain bounds and then hadn’t placed us in charge of those appetites. We have not only the responsibility but also the capacity to behave in the way the Lord has commanded. Claims to the contrary are rationalizations.

Considering the number of cruel tricks this fallen world plays on people I am not sure I find that argument convincing.

[Pyreaux]

Being not Catholic, I believe all things have their purpose. Lust is not sin, its the force that compels men to procreate, if channeled along it intended path. Anger can be used to ward off pain. perhaps a few predetermined and practiced exclamations, as opposed to expletives.

They God displays a righteous anger, though some say that the "wrath of God" and "repenting" of evil thoughts about exterminating Israel and Nineveh as expressions, I would think that is among those with a biased against a God of passion and subject to being dissuaded against. Was Christ not angry when he drove the money chasers out of the Temple? Perhaps anger can be utilized for greater good, if it is controlled and purposeful. Spare the rod, spoil the child, as it is said.

For some it may be best first control anger rather than learn how to utilize it. A tip: when around people you care about, never say the first thing that comes to mind when you are angry. Say they break something, wait a minute, and see if after that minute or ten if you still feel wish to do what you originally thought. Then you must reconcile with your anger, do not bottle it up.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Lust is not sin

My opinion, lust is a sin, it is sexual attraction which is the healthy drive and lust is that warped, which turns the other into an object to satisfy oneself rather than treated as an individual that deserves attention and respect.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Spare the rod, spoil the child, as it is said.

You think that is a healthy approach?  To beat a child into obedience?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

You think that is a healthy approach?  To beat a child into obedience?

“I will here say to parents, that kind words and loving actions towards children, will subdue their uneducated natures a great deal better than the rod, or, in other words, than physical punishment. Although it is written that, “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame,” and, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;” these quotations refer to wise and prudent corrections. Children who have lived in the sunbeams of parental kindness and affection, when made aware of a parent’s displeasure, and receive a kind reproof from parental lips, are more thoroughly chastened, than by any physical punishment that could be applied to their persons. It is written, that the Lord “shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth.”

-Brigham Young

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

My opinion, lust is a sin, it is sexual attraction which is the healthy drive and lust is that warped, which turns the other into an object to satisfy oneself rather than treated as an individual that deserves attention and respect.

I don't know, sounds like a distinction without a difference. Lust is simply desire, which is a common cause of sin. Is lusting after your wife a sin? I have this impression Christ was saying lusting after a woman who is not your wife is a sin. Are we all conceived in sin because we are all the products of lust. If conception is the will of God, then is not lust ultimately the instrument of God's will? As with all passions, they only become sin when you wield it irresponsibly.

Early Christian Fathers - Clementine Homilies - The Uses of Lust, Anger, Grief

"these belong to the things that are accidental, not to those that always exist, and it will be found that they now occur with advantage to the soul. For lust has, by the will of Him who created all things well, been made to arise within the living being, that, led by it to intercourse, he may increase humanity, from a selection of which a multitude of superior beings arise who are fit for eternal life. But if it were not for lust, no one would trouble himself with intercourse with his wife; but now, for the sake of pleasure, and, as it were, gratifying himself, man carries out His will. Now, if a man uses lust for lawful marriage, he does not act impiously; but if he rushes to adultery, he acts impiously, and he is punished because he makes a bad use of a good ordinance. And in the same way, anger has been made by God to be lighted up naturally within us, in order that we may be induced by it to ward off injuries. Yet if any one indulges it without restraint, he acts unjustly; but if he uses it within due bounds, he does what is right. Moreover, we are capable of grief, that we may be moved with sympathy at the death of relatives, of a wife, or children, or brothers, or parents, or friends, or some others, since, if we were not capable of sympathy, we should be inhuman. In like manner, all the other affections will be found to be adapted for us, if at least the reason for their existence be considered." (Clementine Homilies 19:21)

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080819.htm

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Lust is simply desire, which is a common cause of sin.

Tends in my experience to have more connotations than simply desire.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lust

Quote

Definition of lust

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESSHe was motivated more by lust than by love.

I would be interested to hear how others interpret the word.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

have this impression Christ was saying lusting after a woman who is not your wife is a sin

I have the impression he was saying lusting after any women was a sin because he didn’t put a qualification on his comment “except for your wife”.  And given the culture, most of the adult men would have been married iirc, though the use of adultery suggests someone besides one’s wife.  Do you know Greek at all?  I am curious if the original Greek (Aramaic?) means adultery or sexual sin or something else.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Just as the English word "lust" was originally a general term for desire, the Greek word ἐπιθυμέω was also a general term for desire. The LSJ lexicon suggests "set one's heart upon a thing, long for, covet, desire" as glosses for ἐπιθυμέω, which is used in verses that clearly have nothing to do with sexual desire. In the Septuagint, ἐπιθυμέω is the word used in the commandment to not covet:…

The word translated as woman is gyne, which can mean either woman or wife. Some scholars believe that Jesus is only talking about lusting after another's wife, not the attraction of a man to a woman in general.^[3] Nolland notes that sexual desire is not condemned in Matthew or in the contemporary literature, only misdirected desire.^[4]

According to the laws of the time it was not adultery for a married man to sleep with an unmarried woman. Adultery was interpreted as a form of theft, and the harm came from stealing another man's wife. In Matthew 5:32 some feel Jesus will challenge this view. France states that lust is more precisely understood as "in order to do the forbidden with her."^[5] Schweizer notes that looking lustfully at a woman is specifically condemned, implying that it is possible for a man to look at a woman without lust. Important in that it rejects the need for absolute segregation of the sexes.^[6]…

However, the mistranslation is unfortunate at this point. In the Greek it says, ' If anyone looks upon a woman in order to lust, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' That is an important distinction. I need to point that out because sexual arousal, sexual interest, sexual attraction are essential for the continuation of the human species... It is about looking in order to lust. The striptease show, the dirty movie or video, the internet pornography. That is becoming a real problem. Over 80% of internet users are men and 50% of them use it to seek pornography... And if this is a difficulty for you, then do talk to someone about it in confidence. You see, it is the intending to look in order to have that arousal that Jesus has in his sights."^[7]

Looks like you are right…original lust does not have all the connotations it carries today, not even needing to be sexual desire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:27–28

However to avoid misunderstandings, it would be better imo to use desire if you mean simply desire.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I don't know, sounds like a distinction without a difference. Lust is simply desire, which is a common cause of sin. Is lusting after your wife a sin?

I hope not.

As they say men only want one thing and it is completely disgusting:

https://i.imgur.com/3TsIeck.jpeg

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I hope not.

As they say men only want one thing and it is completely disgusting:

https://i.imgur.com/3TsIeck.jpeg

The comfort and benefit of another's embrace is a physiological fact:

"“Research shows that hugs can be healthy,” says Dr. Rock. “Hugs cause a decrease in the release of cortisol, a stress hormone, and other research indicates that hugs decrease your blood pressure and heart rate in stressful situations,” he adds. 

 

Additional research found that giving and receiving hugs can actually strengthen your immune system. "https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-hugging-is-actually-good-for-your-health-video/

We do need others, the desire for human connection is good.