Is it ever appropriate to be angry?

[Kenngo1969]

Hmmm.  I'm not sure anger is never appropriate.  I have heard stories about people who faced dire consequences (read, "imminent serious injury or death") if they failed to extricate themselves immediately from circumstances that threatened immediate harm, and their first reaction isn't a reasoned, "Well, Golly Gee, I had better get myself out of here PDQ if I don't want to get hurt or killed" [Delivered with aplomb in a Gomer Pyle drawl.]  Rather, it is, "#!#&@!! this!  I am not going to die today!"  I'm not sure, if that person's number isn't up, that anger is inappropriate.  Now, would I rather hear the Holy Spirit whisper, "It's not supposed to be your time yet, but if you want to get out of this situation, this is what you need to do ... now "?  Sure.  But, either way, "All's well that ends well!"  

P.S.: If necessary, I always can repent of the anger that saved my life (or that saved me from having to confront some other dire circumstance) later.  

Edited April 17, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Fether]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hmmm….I see it as the reverse myself.  When people say someone has a temper, that is a result of seeing the other express anger in an uncontrolled way.

But if you are going to be discussing appropriateness of anger with others, you need to first decide on what anger is and in my opinion if you are using this definition and others are seeing anger as the initial emotional reaction, you are talking about two different things…an emotion/feeling and the expression of that ‘emotion’.  If this is confusing, think of how we use “attraction” and “lust”, attraction may be something we can’t completely control but lusting is acting inappropriately on the attraction.  Perhaps finding a better word that implies expression of a feeling more than just the feeling would be usef, maybe “rage”?

Is it a sin to feel anger for someone? Are we perfectly justified in God’s eyes to feel angry at people just so long as we don’t act on it

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.  I'm not sure anger is never appropriate.  I have heard stories about people who faced dire consequences (read, "imminent serious injury or death") if they failed to extricate themselves immediately from circumstances that threatened immediate harm, and their first reaction isn't a reasoned, "Well, Golly Gee, I had better get myself out of here PDQ if I don't want to get hurt or killed" [Delivered with aplomb in a Gomer Pyle drawl.]  Rather, it is, "#!#&@!! this!  I am not going to die today!"  I'm not sure, if that person's number isn't up, that anger is inappropriate.  Now, would I rather hear the Holy Spirit whisper, "It's not supposed to be your time yet, but if you want to get out of this situation, this is what you need to do ... now "?  Sure.  But, either way, "All's well that ends well!"   

Fear is often the cause of anger, but if we need to do more than run away, fear isn’t that useful.  Anger, on the other hand, can help us survive by causing us to face the cause of the fear and fight back.  But allowing anger to consume us, I can’t think of any case where that would be helpful as too likely to cause harm if we can’t effectively direct our anger, such as in your above situation if we continue to fight back against multiple attackers when an opportunity to safely run instead opens up.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

Is it a sin to feel anger for someone? Are we perfectly justified in God’s eyes to feel angry at people just so long as we don’t act on it

If the choice (stark and dire though it is) is, "It's either that person's life or mine," or even simple anger at a circumstance that might not have been caused deliberately by another human being, or might not have been human-caused at all ("hap crappening," natural forces, et cetera) I would say that the anger is justified.  I have known people who have faced that circumstance personally, and I'm glad they're still here ... even if it was anger that impelled them to take the action that ensured their survival.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Fether said:

Are we perfectly justified in God’s eyes to feel angry at people just so long as we don’t act on it

I think it could be sinful not to act on anger for others, for me the question is if you are controlling the anger and using it to fuel righteous choices or allowing the anger to control you.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Fear is often the cause of anger, but if we need to do more than run away, fear isn’t that useful.  Anger, on the other hand, can help us survive by causing us to face the cause of the fear and fight back.  But allowing anger to consume us, I can’t think of any case where that would be helpful as too likely to cause harm if we can’t effectively direct our anger, such as in your above situation of continuing to fight back against multiple attackers when an opportunity to safely run instead opens up.

Fair enough ... Certainly, I don't think that anyone should satisfy bloodlust simply because the opportunity to do someone harm under circumstances that most would consider to be justified presents itself.  That said, oftentimes, when confronted with such circumstances, "running to safety" seems like the ideal choice only in retrospect.  (And "running to safety" might not be an option "even when it is an option" [my phrase]: If I'm sworn to protect the members of my community or my country as a law enforcement officer or a member of the military, then my safety ... even given the old adage that "A dead cop can't help anyone" ... isn't always the primary concern.)

 

[Fether]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it could be sinful not to act on anger for others, for me the question is if you are controlling the anger and using it to fuel righteous choices or allowing the anger to control you.

Say a husband comes home from work and sees that his wife doesn’t have dinner done and the house is a mess. He then gets angry at her, but instead of saying anything, he bites his tongue and spitefully makes dinner and cleans up. All the while fuming at how mad he is at her for wasting away the day and leaving all the work to him.
 

Is that righteous? He did nothing wrong 

Edited April 17, 2022 by Fether

[Fether]

Here is a good article about this topic that addresses many of the things we were talking about

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-message-four-gospels/scriptural-comparison-concerning-anger-3-nephi-1222-matthew-522

[Fether]

52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the choice (stark and dire though it is) is, "It's either that person's life or mine," or even simple anger at a circumstance that might not have been caused deliberately by another human being, or might not have been human-caused at all ("hap crappening," natural forces, et cetera) I would say that the anger is justified.  I have known people who have faced that circumstance personally, and I'm glad they're still here ... even if it was anger that impelled them to take the action that ensured their survival.

My question to this is if the desirable outcome could have been accomplished without anger, would that have been better?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Say a husband comes home from work and sees that his wife doesn’t have dinner done and the house is a mess. He then gets angry at her, but instead of saying anything, he bites his tongue and spitefully makes dinner and cleans up. All the while fuming at how mad he is at her for wasting away the day and leaving all the work to him.
 

Is that righteous? He did nothing wrong 

Sure he did, fuming instead of processing his anger and coming to an understanding of it and what he needed to move past it as well as in the process of that trying to see it from his wife’s POV, what she is needing that is interfering with her being able to clean (assuming that is their agreed upon division of labor and not just his assumption it is her work), forgiving her if she is at fault, etc….there were many things he could have been constructively doing with his anger besides nurturing/treasuring it.

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sure he did, fuming instead of processing his anger and coming to an understanding of it and what he needed to move past it as well as in the process of that trying to see it from his wife’s POV, what she is needing that is interfering with her being able to clean (assuming that is their agreed upon division of labor and not just his assumption it is her work), forgiving her if she is at fault, etc….there were many things he could have been constructively doing with his anger besides nurturing/treasuring it.

So in this case, his feeling of anger is a sin? What separates a feeling of anger that is a son And isn’t?

Edited April 17, 2022 by Fether

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Could the same actions be done without the anger?

Maybe not. Sometimes we need strong negative emotions to motivate us to righteous action. 

[SkyRock]

This is a complicated topic.  Feeling anger is not wrong.   Indulging in anger, becoming a rageaholic, is wrong.   Throwing anger around at innocents is often wrong. Expressing anger may be wrong.

Anger is viewed as a secondary emotion, one resulting from personal boundary violations.  We should try to examine the source of our anger rather than let it control us.

Suppressing back anger may also be wrong.   It isn't honest and is unhealthy.   If someone harms us or betrays us, to try and block out the anger that comes is wrong.   We may not want to express the anger, but we should feel the pain and anger, and maybe express it.  

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Book of Mormon equivalent is not so forgiving about being angry even if you have a cause.

Let's hear it.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Im not just talking about common situations where someone harms us or our kids are loud in sacrament meeting. I want to go to the extremes where someone maliciously harms us in an extreme way, or some atrocity is committed. 

I have the opinion that, though it may be understandable and that there may be good reason, it is never appropriate to be angry.

Many point to Christ cleansing the temple as a justification that it is ok to be angry. But I challenge that idea that Christ was angry.

If there are times when it is appropriate to be angry, could you explain what those times are and what factors play into making it appropriate?

Given your definition of anger refers to extremes, maliciousness and atrocity, I'm not sure how it could be appropriate. Wait a second -- it would be quite appropriate for someone who thinks and acts in extremes, maliciousness and atrocities.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Fether said:

So in this case, his feeling of anger is a sin? What separates a feeling of anger that is a son And isn’t?

Not the initial feeling.  It was in continuing it, allowing it to fester is the sin.  Like if one sees an attractive person and is sexually interested…that is not a sin.  But it is a sin to stare and/or start to imagine them in a sexual way, fantasize, build the arousal, etc.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

Im not just talking about common situations where someone harms us or our kids are loud in sacrament meeting. I want to go to the extremes where someone maliciously harms us in an extreme way, or some atrocity is committed. 

I have the opinion that, though it may be understandable and that there may be good reason, it is never appropriate to be angry.

Many point to Christ cleansing the temple as a justification that it is ok to be angry. But I challenge that idea that Christ was angry.

If there are times when it is appropriate to be angry, could you explain what those times are and what factors play into making it appropriate?

I’m of the opinion anger is absolutely necessary to experience. Not all forms of anger and not forever. But it should happen. 
 

Let me give you an easy example. Often when I’ve seen people who’ve experienced something bad in their lives anger is not the first emotion they go to. They choose either “softer” emotions or completely minimize the effect something traumatic had on them. So anger helps them recognize the true effect of something wrong and often moves them to finally take actions to stop the problem. It’s a protective emotion and sometimes it’s right to get protective. 

There are problems with anger. Just like prolonged intense sadness can be a sign of depression. Prolonged anger can be a sign of rage. Anger as a permanent go-to state is extremely unhealthy. It leads one to hyper focus on problems and blow them out of proportion. 
 

We can also get angry when we are in the wrong. This form of anger then protects us from really changing and growing in healthy ways. 
 

but overall anger to me is no more right or wrong than any other emotion. It’s a necessary part of processing experiences around us. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited April 17, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the choice (stark and dire though it is) is, "It's either that person's life or mine," or even simple anger at a circumstance that might not have been caused deliberately by another human being, or might not have been human-caused at all ("hap crappening," natural forces, et cetera) I would say that the anger is justified.  I have known people who have faced that circumstance personally, and I'm glad they're still here ... even if it was anger that impelled them to take the action that ensured their survival.

 

4 hours ago, Fether said:

My question to this is if the desirable outcome could have been accomplished without anger, would that have been better?

Hypothetically and theoretically, yes.  No one in his or her right mind ever hopes to shoot or to kill anyone, but if the very real and very imminent alternative is allowing someone who is completely innocent to be hurt or killed, as regrettable as the choice to take the aggressor's life might be, still, taking the aggressor's life is preferable to allowing harm or death to innocents to occur.  The law enforcement officers I have spoken with who have faced that situation are less angry at the person who put them in the position of having to use deadly force to protect someone else than they are at simply having been put into the situation where using such force was necessary.  While I don't think Captain Moroni was perfect (see his correspondence with Pahoran), I think he comes pretty close to being the ideal when it comes to use of force and righteous anger. 

[Edited to remove mistaken reference to "Whoso is angry with his brother without a cause" which I mistakenly thought the JST had added when, apparently, conversely, it removed it.]  And the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of "reproving betimes with sharpness."  Are such situations to be less the rule than they are the exception?  Certainly, but I don't think that means that there is no such thing as righteous anger.  And I've never read the book, but I agree with the concept: "Feelings buried alive never die."

Edited April 17, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not the initial feeling.  It was in continuing it, allowing it to fester is the sin.  Like if one sees an attractive person and is sexually interested…that is not a sin.  But it is a sin to stare and/or start to imagine them in a sexual way, fantasize, build the arousal, etc.

Just another example

two men. Both come home to the same messy house and no dinner done. One husband is momentarily angry, but practices exercises and quickly overcomes that anger and helps out. The second husband feels no anger and just jumps to helping.

Is the second husband any more righteous or closer to what God wants out of us as his children?

If so, would you classify the first husband’s initial reaction as a sin? Or perhaps just a weakness?

[Fether]

45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

without a cause

Both the Book of Mormon and JST remove this. Additionally, the KJV is the only Bible that has this in it. I think we can safely say this is not meant to be in it.

[Fether]

I think this is the conclusion I have come to.

the initial reaction and feeling of anger is a weakness rather than a sin. This weakness does need to be overcome, but we haven’t done anything wrong. It becomes a sin when we act or fester in it

here is a great talk that describes the difference between weakness and sin.

TLDR

Sin: rebellion against God commandments

Weakness: a natural experiences that is baked into our mortal experience that keeps us from becoming like christ (the initial feelings of lust, forgetting to say your prayers, inability to address questions someone may have about our faith, lack of leadership quality to be a bishop)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/04/it-isnt-a-sin-to-be-weak?lang=eng

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Fether said:

Just another example

two men. Both come home to the same messy house and no dinner done. One husband is momentarily angry, but practices exercises and quickly overcomes that anger and helps out. The second husband feels no anger and just jumps to helping.

Is the second husband any more righteous or closer to what God wants out of us as his children?

If so, would you classify the first husband’s initial reaction as a sin? Or perhaps just a weakness?

The first husband…righteousness depends on why the anger, if it is because of selfishness and he is ignoring his wife’s needs, it is a sin.  If it is more frustration that there are delays so there is discomfort or that other good things are sacrificed due to having to take the time to clean and cook, weakness I would say, but not a sin.

The second would be closer to what God wants imo, but more righteous, I don’t think so.  Righteousness to me is about choices we make rather than gut reactions. Some people just don’t care about the stuff that makes others angry. Some people don’t get angry because they don’t like the physical sensation, for example.  That is a self centered reason not to get angry and is no more righteous to me than someone who feels a gut reaction of anger and then controls it quickly and uses the energy for constructive purpose.  If the second husband’s gut response is compassion for his wife, then that would be more righteous imo.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Calm

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Righteousness to me is about choices we make rather than gut reactions.

I would put “gut reaction” under weakness. Still something we ought to seek to overcome

[Prof]

When I read through some of the first responses of this thread, I was thinking of Ezekial 25:17 (as presented by Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction).

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Fether said:

I would put “gut reaction” under weakness. Still something we ought to seek to overcome

Gut reactions can be quite positive, like feeling love at the sight of your spouse or children.