No. How you handle your anger can be.

I've had some issues to work through just growing up in a house where anger was not okay. In my house, if you felt angry at someone, you went to your room until it went away. I became pretty good at shoving it down. That is, until there was too much and I would eventually and inevitably lash out.

This was a BAD thing when I got married. I wouldn't communicate with my husband. Trying to be a good wife, I'd just take whatever came along and stuff my feelings. Then some seemingly small incident would make me blow my top, leaving him to and try to figure out what just happened. We talked through the anger thing, and he's helped me to come along and accept that anger is an acceptable emotion (though, IMO, it's a manifestation of something else like fear or hurt) and just needs to be dealt with in healthy ways.

I still stuff a bit, and then blow up a little when it's just too much. But it's not as bad, and getting better, and I don't feel guilty for having "bad" feelings.

Feelings are what they are. It's what you do with them that counts.

IMO, there can be situations where the lack of appropriate righteous anger can be a very bad thing. I'm specifically thinking of a proper parent's reaction when their kids intentionally take a few steps down dark paths. In some situations, when the kids are surrounded by a support system for such choices, a parent may need to be more than a lighthouse or a good example. In some cases, a proper course of action involves whacking the kid upside his fool head and shouting some cold hard facts into his face.

(Ok - did I stick enough qualifiers in there? Obviously I'm not advocating this except in certain rare cases.)

It seems to me like boot camps and scared-straight programs and the like make good use of righteous anger. It provides clear, unambiguous direction that appeals to a person's desrire to belong and be accepted.

But again, just to make crystal clear, for every situation that might call for anger, there are countless situations that do not.

LM

what Arbi said... (see Coco... I am learning... )

We took a marriage relations class taught during Sunday School once. When it came to the lesson about anger, the manual essentially said "no anger" and all the class members said "oh, they don't really mean 'no anger'--anger is good, anger can bring about change, etc"

It has always bothered me. THis is part of what that manual said:

In the Joseph Smith Translation of Ephesians 4:26, Paul asks the question, Can ye be angry, and not sin? The Lord is very clear on this issue:

He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away (3 Nephi 11:2930).

This doctrine or command from the Lord presupposes agency and is an appeal to the conscious mind to make a decision. The Lord expects us to make the choice not to become angry.

Nor can becoming angry be justified. In Matthew 5, verse 22, the Lord says, But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:22; italics added). How interesting that the phrase without a cause is not found in the inspired Joseph Smith Translation (see Matthew 5:24), nor in the 3 Nephi 12:22 version. When the Lord eliminates the phrase without a cause, He leaves us without an excuse. But this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away (3 Nephi 11:30). We can do away with anger, for He has so taught and commanded us.

(bold added by me)

It didn't say, anger is ok if you use it for good, it said DO NOT BECOME ANGRY.

Does that mean the experience that could cause you to be angry, if you let it, shouldn't be a force for change, if needed ? Nope.

It's almost like the United Order. Hard to fathom. But I have never found scripture or heard a prophet tell me anger can be good.

(BTW--the result of the "Strengthening you Marriage" class was 3 divorces, including the SS president and YM president)

Maybe an example of where I am coming from:

One of my chief responses to the terror attacks of 9/11 has been anger. I don't hate muslims, but I am angry at what they did to the US. I shouldn't let it become a festering hateful thing, but I think my anger is appropriate, especially if it makes me energized to support the measures taken to protect the US from further attack.

Would any of the liberation movements of history have happened if people hadn't gotten angry that their rights and their humanity was being violated? Would the Civil Rights movement have happened? Would the US Revolution?

What about the abused spouse who finally decides they aren't going to take it anymore and gets out of the marriage? Isn't that an appropriate anger?

It does not require anger to leave an abusive relationship... It requires loving oneself enough not to allow oneself to be abused...

I don't believe the point is to stuff down the feelings that produce anger... I believe the point is that as we become Christlike [enough] that we don't feel anger. I know that there are time where the Lord's anger is mentioned... However I don't believe that is an endorsement for everyone to be angry... Maybe if ever get to the point where I am righteous enough to "use" the righteous anger trump card, I'll let you know if I changed my mind... nevertheless... I wouldn't hold your breath, anyone...

Just FTR, my anger has never ever been "productive"... it has only drug me down and caused heartache, to me and to others... Even the anger I felt against the man that raped me was not productive... There is NO healing in anger, at least I have never seen it.

Congrats on the new calling M... How's the wife and kidlets???

That's great! I served in Chile... too many years ago than I would like to admit...

Anyway, back to this anger thing... I have noticed that usually the ones that like to be allowed a lot of freedom in their anger... are not the ones that have the anger directed at them... Anyone else notice that?

Okay... that's a good example of positive direction of anger... but was is useful to be angry in the first place Coco??

I agree... but I didn't want to be accused of moderating where I don't belong...

Polly- I don't think it was "useful" ... it just occured ... then I decide to sleep on it.

I'm not to the level where I feel no anger ever...

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 21:41, 2007-10-19

Cocobeem wrote:

---

I'm not to the level where I feel no anger ever...

---

Me either... Wish I was though... cause I don't think it's a good thing and it sure does not benefit my life...

Good strategy Coco... And in my 50 yr experience with life... more productive!

I spent a lot of years angry in high school. This anger led to depression and feelings of very low self-worth. What helped me get over it? Writing down why I was angry, and any other thoughts that popped into my head, as well as figuring out something I could do so that I wouldn't be angry. I knew that I was making myself miserable being angry all the time, so I tried to find a way to fix it. I must say that doing that helped a lot. Things weren't changed immediately, it still took quite some time. But now, I understand that most of the anger came from not understanding someone, or being impatient with someone. So now when I feel inclined to be angry with someone, I try to see where they are coming from. Ofttimes this makes the whole anger issue go away, and I have a productive solution.

I know that for me, anger is bad. I can be passionate about an issue, but anger never helps it. And when I get into angry spells, ...well, let's just say that it's bad. I become the stereo-type red-head with anger issues.

So those are my thoughts on anger within myself personally. To try to provoke more thought in Shiz's conversation though, about the anger of the Lord:

Christ is our perfect example and we are supposed to try to be like Him and follow Him.
Fact.

In the Da Vinci Code, there was a man trying to be like Christ. He was trying to make himself suffer as Christ suffered. However, Christ suffered so that we could take His name upon ourselves and be relieved from the suffering.

Now I would like to refer to Elder Worthlin's talk from General Conference entitled "The Greatest Commandment". 

Love is the beginning, the middle, and the end of the pathway of discipleship. It comforts, counsels, cures, and consoles. It leads us through valleys of darkness and through the veil of death. In the end love leads us to the glory and grandeur of eternal life.Love is the greatest of all the commandmentsall others hang upon it. It is our focus as followers of the living Christ. It is the one trait that, if developed, will most improve our lives.
I just found those skimming, but the whole talk is amazing. 

Also, a quick search in the scriptures on the topic:

1. 1 Cor. 13: 2-3 2 And though I have the gift of aprophecy, and understand all bmysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the apoor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
2. Moro. 7: 44, 46 44 If so, his afaith and hope is vain, for none is bacceptable before God, save the cmeek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and dconfesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity. 46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail
3. 2 Ne. 26: 30 30 Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have acharity, which bcharity is clove. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.
4. D&C 18: 19 19 And if you have not afaith, bhope, and ccharity, you can do nothing.
So while my instinct is just to say "Well, anger isn't an attribute of Christ that we should be following, we should learn to be more charitible" which was my initial reaction, I'm more curious what anger actually means in those scriptures in reference to the Lord's anger.  President Hinckley's talk was pretty specific about the need to control our anger.  But are there things that we can be angry about?

I know I get angry when I hear about laws that will tear apart the family.
I know I get angry when other drivers don't obey the law.

Anger for me just gets me riled up, and I hate that feeling.  But is there that righteous anger that can make life better for everyone involved?

I'm not saying let's all go out and be angry, I'm just curious about this "righteous anger".  Is it better to be angry at a situation than a specific person?  Like, I can be angry that this world is basically throwing away how precious marriage is, between a man and wife?  I could use this anger to write my state representatives, letting them know how important the family is in society.  I could also use this anger and be mad at any gay people, or people who get divorces because they are "tired of being married". 

One thing I do know, is that letting anger take over my life nearly ruined it forever.  That's why my natural instinct is to discover why I am angry and come up with a rational plan that will change the situation.  Even just writing it all out and then sleeping can solve an anger issue. 

Sorry for the rambling...I'm still not so sure I agree with this "righteous anger" thing though...maybe I need to think on it more.  Intriguing topic.

I don't think the delimited definition of anger at the start of the thread is the best. What I found for definitions of anger elsewhere actually included the words and concepts chosen to delimit out. Maybe the concepts can't be seperated too easily outside of casual conversation when put into practice.

Anyway, I understand the concept of trying to seperate them. I just think that there are far fewer individuals who know how to employ the traits of righteous indignation than we give credit for.

So, I wonder, are we as objective about seperating the emotions, reactions, and thought processes in real life as we try to be in these philosophical conversation? Are we always honest with ourselves when we get upset? How often do we seek to find justification in our anger as well as validation for the feeling and reaction?

Earlier, it had been said that "letting it go" and the like was nothing more than stuffing it down in and repressing it, with the full expectation that it is going to come out again in a volcanic explosion when the pressure gets too high. That is a natural reaction both ways around, but it is not healthy (in my mind at least). Letting go of it really means to let go of it... to not internalize it, to keep yourself free of becoming a slave to it.

Letting go of it is kind of like George Washington's response to the near military coup of the young republic that was suggested by a number of those who had been his junior officers... They and the troops and a number of private citizens certainly had just grievances and reasons to be angry...

The Commander in Chief hinted that he would not appear personally, and thus when he strode on the stage, it was a surprise. And the faces of his gathered officers made it clear that the surprise was not a pleasant one. For the first time since he had won the love of the army, he saw facing him resentment and anger.

As Washington began to speak, he was "sensibly agitated." He talked first of his own early and devoted service, of his love for his soldiers. The faces before him did not soften. He pointed out that the country which the anonymous exhorter wished them to tryannize over or abandon was their own: "our wives, our children, our farms and other property." As for the exhorter's advice that they should refuse to listen to words of moderation, this would mean that "reason is of no use to us. The freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter." By now, the audience seemed perturbed, but the anger and resentment had not been dispelled.

Washington then stated that he believed the government would, "despite the slowness inherent in deliberative bodies," in the end act justly. He urged the officers not "to open the flood gates of civil discord, and deluge our rising empire in blood." They should "afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, 'had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.'

Washington had come to the end of his prepared speech but his audience did not seem truly moved. He clearly had not achieved his end. He remembered he had brought with him a reassuring letter from a congressman. He would read it. He pulled the paper from his pocket, and then something seemed to go wrong. The General seemed confused; he stared at the paper helplessly. The officers leaned forward, their hearts contracting with anxiety. Washington pulled from his pocket something only his intimates had seen him wear: a pair of eyeglasses. "Gentlemen," he said, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

This homely act and simple statement did what all Washington's arguments had failed to do. The hardened soldiers wept. Washington had saved the United States from tyranny and civil discord." As Jefferson was later to comment, "The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subervsion of that liberty it was intended to establish."

Flexnor, James Thomas, Washington: The Indispensable Man, pp. 174-175

Truely letting go of the things that anger us is a process one has to learn and practice, just as following the path of trying to justify our anger and resulting reactions is a learned behavior we often are unaware we condition ourselves into.

So in the Topical Guide when I look up anger it lists "God, Indignation of" under see also. I decided to dig a little deeper into the semantics of God's anger, so I looked up indignation in an online dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indignation

"Strong displeasure at something considered unjust, offensive, insulting, or base; righteous anger." and "Anger aroused by something unjust, mean, or unworthy." I got some insight from that, but I still don't quite understand how the wrath, anger and indignation of God mentioned all over the Bible fits in with the God I know in my heart. I'm wanting to understand more so I can mend the rift in my perceptions. I guess I'm getting adrift of the original topic, though.

So anger may be a normal response, but what we do with that emotion is the key? Kinda like it may be normal for a man to notice an attractive woman, but what he does next is where he can get into trouble?

I've been thinking about this topic the last couple of days and this is the realization I've come to.
Just because anger is the natural response to situations it doesn't necessarily make it right.
If you really think about it, what good does getting angry do? Does it make one feel better? The only person who gets punished from being angry is oneself, especially when one hangs on to it. You do far more damage to those around you by holding grudges, having a sour disposition, finding fault, and blaming others than any real or supposed damage or trespass you yourself received.

Our perception of the Lord's anger is very, very, limited, and people like to pattern and define the Lord to be like themselves. It's like saying "if it's ok for the Lord to get angry, then surely my anger is ok."

Let's face it, we live in a society where we are directly and indirectly taught that it's ok to justify just about anything. There are plenty of people around who are ready, willing and able to help us "validate" our feelings. But, the one person we need to turn to that can truly help us release our anger is the Lord.

If a heart is filled with anger, even buried down deep, then the Spirit cannot and will not enter in.
And without the Spirit there is no peace.





-- Edited by Poncho29 at 10:47, 2007-10-21

Well said, poncho.

Holding a grudge is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies.

I would hope that if someone needs a better "outlet" for anger other than holding a grudge that would mean they would channel it somewhere and let it go. There are no good reasons to hang onto anger. People can rationalize and justify it all they want (which I pointed out in an earlier post), but it is not healthy. Keeping anger in one's heart only leads to resentment, and other negative emotions and makes one cynical and unforgiving.

But, I do think a person needs to find a way to release their anger that is not hurtful to oneself or others.

fear of shiz wrote:

---

But holding a grudge is not the only way to deal with one's anger. I agree that resentments and grudges are harmful to the person who holds on to them. But that is not the only outlet for anger.

---

So, shiz what are you trying to not say?  You've hinted at your opinion, but haven't come out and said anything.  I'm curious as to what your thoughts are.  When and how do you think anger is appropriate?

I do... but in MY experience knitting and anger DO NOT mesh...

LOL, Coco.

I have hinted at my opinion, and it seems to differ from many of the opinions here, though I think that is partly a matter of definition.

The best way I know to define it is in terms of self-protection and boundaries. When a country's boundaries are crossed, when it is threatened, an angry response is normal and expected. Likewise, if someone does something threatening to the well-being of me and mine, I think an angry, defensive response is appropriate. Now, that doesn't mean uncontrolled anger, and it doesn't mean repressed grudges, and it doesn't mean an undying hatred. It means that I take whatever means are necessary to protect myself and those I care for.

An example: my mother has an unfortunate favoritism for my oldest child. She feels an affinity to her, and it shows. Her gifts to DD1 are more expensive, more thoughtful, and more creative than the gifts the other children receive. She also spends more time and attention on DD1. This makes me angry. I see potential here for hurt, both to my oldest and to the other children. And I don't think that the favored status that I had as a child in my own family did me any favors, or my siblings. So I have made it clear to my mother that this behavior is not acceptable--I have stated my boundaries clearly and calmly. She has continued to push those boundaries. So I have made clear to her that there are consequences when my boundaries are not honored. It really is almost like a country whose airspace is being flown into by an aggressive neighbor.

If I hadn't expressed my feelings to my mother, then they would have festered, and that would not be good for me. And the threatening behavior would have continued. So a healthy outlet for my anger is to clearly define my boundaries.

What about turning the other cheek? I think that applies for minor slights. The person who cuts me off in traffic, the harsh word said in the heat of the moment by a spouse--these things are things that I need to just let wash over me--they might make me angry for a moment, but they are not worth holding on to.

I hope that helps explain my view.