ryanh
-
Posts
865 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ryanh
-
-
Clinical issues are a whole different realm than is being discussed here. If your anger is chemical based, similar to one's inability to come out of depression is chemical based, then the situation is wholly inapplicable to the discussion.Take it from the person who is dealing with anger management her whole life... you can be angry for no apparent reason. Or - the reason is completely benign as to cause anger. Or whatever.
Anger as a raw emotion is a chemical reaction to stimuli. Yes, of course, all feelings are caused by stimuli! That doesn't make it a false feeling. Unless you state that the chemical reaction was misfiring due to a factor not present at birth... kinda like saying being gay is a false feeling...
Or . . . the lack of analyzing the root of what leads to your anger, in the way Slam has begun to touch upon, is precisely why you still struggle with it.
And, then you wonder why you haven't tackled it yet? There have been many ideas over the years in psychology as to what is "right" or "best". Just because there is a thought that has been espoused does not mean it is correct in the light of the gospel, or what truly is best for our health. What do we tell over and over to the people that come one these forums that have masturbation issues? Don't feed the beast, and it will eventually starve. Why continue to "practice" being angry? For most people, that is a poor practice of how to reduce anger in their lives. One that simply redirects the anger to healthy outlets, but does not deal with the root issue. Trying to apply techniques for control of clinical issues to the general population as a basis of understanding is going to produce false conclusions every time. It's a sdrawkcab approach.Because - you can tell me until your blue that anger is wrong, anger is false, anger is whatever. It goes completely against what I have learned in managing my anger issues. Because, the first thing I learned about anger is that - it is present. Allow yourself to feel it, then you can control it!
-
Oh come on Backroads! Follow the logical path and result of each emotion. And I don't think you are unaware of the admonitions of the sermon on the mount. Anger is fundamentally different from most other emotions we feel.Yet it seems all emotions are caused by something. What makes anger any different? Why is it okay to feel sad, lonely, happy, etc, but not angry?
Anger is the result of sin
The second bit of evidence against anger is this: Anger between individuals is the result of sin. Let’s analyze for a minute what kinds of thoughts create anger.
In order to get angry at a person, we first have to judge that person. When we judge, we’re doing one of two things—we’re either discerning the nature of our experiences (weighing evidence), or we’re condemning. All of us, hopefully, are continually discerning, but not condemning. In Matthew 7:2 (Joseph Smith Translation) the Savior says, “Judge not unrighteously, that you be not judged, but judge righteous judgment.” [JST, Matt. 7:2] I suggest that discerning between rightness and wrongness, discovering the true nature of a given act under the inspiration of the Spirit, is appropriate or righteous judgment. Condemnation is the unrighteous judgment referred to. In the act of discerning we do not get angry. It’s only when we judge and condemn another that we get angry, when we look at what was done and decide that he or she is bad. Thus we have to have sinned—condemned another—to make ourselves angry.
Another kind of thought that gives rise to anger is selfishness. Selfish thinking includes most of the “shoulds” that we apply to other people—we think a person should or should not do something because we do or don’t want them to, or we demand that they gratify our wishes and desires. We think that a coworker should see things our way, or that a wife should have had dinner ready sooner, or that a husband should help around the house more. As President Kimball stated in one of his general conference addresses, there are three major things we need to do in order to truly become Zion, and one of them is to overcome our selfishness (see Ensign, May 1978, p. 81).
The primary function of anger is to control others. Some people have learned this art very well. They get what they want by becoming loud and angry. The target of such ire tends to do what the angry individual wants in order to placate him. Anger thus has the unrighteous goal of attempting to diminish the freedom of others.
The second characteristic of anger, then, is that anger against others is a result of sin, or unrighteous thinking.
Anger itself is a sin
We have seen that anger against another can only result after we commit sin (think unrighteously), but there is something in the nature of anger itself and its consequences that is also sinful. Anger itself is a sin when sin is defined as anything that retards the growth or progress of an individual. This is the third characteristic of anger that we need to recognize.
All anger will inevitably be expressed some way. It may come out openly; it may be expressed passively with responses such as tardiness or not keeping commitments; it may be entirely suppressed and manifest itself only in deep-seated psychological or psychosomatic problems.
Assume, for example, that the anger is suppressed. John is angry with David, who he feels has misrepresented him to their boss and thus prevented John from getting a promotion. John cannot even bring himself to say “Good morning” to David at work; he avoids him in the hall; he lets little criticisms of David slip in to conversations with others; he is constantly thinking of ways he can “get even” with him. His work begins to suffer; coworkers notice that John is becoming bitter, cynical, unpleasant to be around. John’s anger is thus harmful to himself, to those around him, and to David.
Anger can also be physically destructive to the angry person. Though the exact results of anger are not totally known, we do know that it creates excess acid in the stomach, inflammation of the stomach blood vessels, and increased stomach movement. And most of us know that suppressed anger and rage are often cited as a major cause of ulcers. We do know, too, that anger elevates both the systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Therefore, physicians feel safe in saying that anger is a main cause of hypertension. Some headaches are also associated with anger.
Thus, there seems to be plenty of evidence for this third characteristic of anger; in terms of personal consequences, anger is not only a result of sin, but is also a sin in itself. (We should realize, of course, that we do not usually decide to be angry. Anger is a result of the types of thoughts we have already discussed; often we are angry at something immediately—it is almost a reflex. But we are still responsible for this kind of anger because we have previously established that pattern—we have trained ourselves to react with anger to certain situations.)
Anger causes sin
There is one more principle that can help us define anger. Anger usually has harmful interpersonal consequences—it often results in conflicts, contention, injury to the self-esteem and dignity of another, and/or erosion of mutual respect. There are, of course, ways to express anger neutrally and even constructively. An angry person may be motivated to confront another and rationally discuss a problem. An improved relationship may well result.
But there are ways to get to that happy solution without anger. Anger isn’t a necessary prerequisite to a helpful conversation; it usually, in fact, prevents it. My point is that virtually all, if not all, anger between individuals is destructive. The scriptures state, “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice” (Eph. 4:31); “be … slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (James 1:19–20); and “wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous” (Prov. 27:3–4).
Modern prophets have also warned against anger: “Never suffer anger to arise in your bosom; for, if you do, you may be overcome by evil” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:290); “The moment a man or woman becomes angry, they show a great weakness” (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 4:98); “Anger that leads a man … to condemn his brother is crime” (David O. McKay, Pathways to Happiness, comp. Lewellen R. McKay, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1957, p. 321).
The idea that anger is inevitable is a philosophy of the world, not of the gospel. From a gospel framework, our goal is not just constructive release of anger, but the elimination of anger.
Burton C. Kelly: The Case Against Anger
-
And God also gave us many other weaknesses that if indulged are a sin. God gave us the capability to kill as well as to be angry. Just because there is a capability does not automatically make something "good" and "righteous". Nor is anger a necessary part for healing. When we are angry about being hurt, it is a protective reaction - a reaction that prevents us from fulfilling the higher law expectations of us - to "turn the other cheek". I have mourned without anger. It is not a necessity by any means.Anger is a God given emotion. We all possess it as human beings. It is useful in many healing processes such as bereavement and is a natural part of that process. We wouldn't heal without it. It is also a protective mechanism. Only when used in a destructive manner does it become unhealthy. It can also be used in a healthy way to show people our indignation, such as Christ overturning the tables in the Temple. And as with all other emotions it can be controlled. Only when it is uncontrollable does it cause problems.
, whose wife, son, and only daughter were killed in 2007 by a drunk teenage driver is a wonderful example of someone finding healing FAR faster by not giving audience to his anger than he possibly could have were his reaction to use anger as a tool for healing.
There is nothing that speaks so well as one who has really had to grapple with an issue, analyze themselves, and truly get to the root of a weakness. You are wise from your experiences Slam - I really can feel it from that post. I'm saddened that others don't naturally see the true wisdom behind your understanding, but are so quick to dismiss it. Kudos to you for making such copious amounts of lemonade from all the lemons.Righteousness and anger are mutually exclusive. Main reason is that anger is a false emotion. It is always covering up something else that needs to be dealt with, or that is being hidden. For example, a person who has an anger against their parents are covering up other emotions in an attempt to not deal with them either out of choice, or out of emotional protection. It most likely stems from the parent(s) being abusive and possibly one passively looking on. So is the victim angry? Does the victim have the right to be angry? And what will that anger do to the victim?
The victim needs to analyze why they are angry with their parents. Delve into the emotions of being vulnerable with no one to protect them. Confront the pain of being trapped with no way out. Deal with all the trauma that is behind the anger. Once that is all out there and being confronted, the anger will subside because they will no longer give their parents any more power over them. So the anger turns into sadness for what they have lost, then into forgiveness because they have regained enough power and control over themselves that they are able to move past the abuse that held them down. Thus the destructive path of anger is extinguished.
So I propose that there is no such thing as righteous anger. Rather, there is righteous indignation for which we are not permitted to have, only the Lord to who is given the exclusive rights of judgment. For us, we are commanded to enlarge our capacity to forgive.
That's precisely the point apple, that anger is the resultant choice of the thought processes. Anger of course isn't "false", it is most definitely real. Grab a couple psychology books, really study where anger comes from (our choice to react to how we perceive and choose to feel about a stimuli). Or, just read the ensign article I linked to above.I usually agree with most of your thoughts that you've posted. This one not so much. There is nothing false about anger. It doesn't always cover up anything. It is very real to be angry about something, such as getting cancer, or because your spouse didn't stop at the store to pick up milk on his way home.
Feelings are neither good nor bad. They just ARE! How we act on our feelings is what becomes good or bad.
Consider how two people respond differently to the same stimuli. It could be anything - let's use getting hurt. Perhaps stubbing one's toe badly - we've all done that. Some people (kids especially who have not learned yet to be angry at hurt) have no anger. Yet others swear, get hopping mad, and kick the offending object with their good foot. What was the difference? The choice of what to do about the stimuli. The choice of how to respond.
, whose wife, son, and only daughter were killed in 2007 by a drunk teenage driver is a prime example that how one responds to a tragedy is a choice.I vehemently disagree about feelings being neither good or bad!!! Go back to this last general conference and listen to Elder Oak's on Desire. Our choice of what to feel is precisely what leads to actions. It is the seed of act! We will be judged on our thoughts, feelings, and works. For the thoughts and feelings show what is truly in our heart.
A must watch MormonMessages video for all people in regards to dealing with anger and forgiveness:
-
See the article link above. The author does address the roots of anger, and how anger is a result, not the original response.
Well, that's a darn good question which I didn't ask. I assumed she meant things such as being hurt, afraid, happy, etc. Emotions which are only about how we feel, not how we feel towards others.
Secondary to what?My wife is of the opinion that anger is a secondary emotion which is never justified, and that you cannot feel angry and be living according to the gospel principles. That there is no such thing as justified, righteous anger.
-
I would highly suggest both you and your wife read the entire article by Burton C. Kelly titled The Case Against Anger for some ideas to discuss. I tend to agree with Burton that there is no such thing as righteous anger. To address some points already made in this thread that assert there is righteous anger based on scriptural references to the Lord's anger, I've copied one section from the article below.
The Lord’s “anger”
But, some may ask, “Why is it that God himself gets angry?” The scriptures make reference to God’s wrath or God’s anger. Would God command us not to get angry and yet be a God of anger himself?
At this point we should look at our definition of anger. I am using it in the sense that it is an emotion that results from judging others unrighteously, wanting to control others, or selfishly wanting our own ends met. I submit that God does not get angry when anger is thus defined—or as we commonly use the word. In Mark 3:5, after the Savior healed the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, we find the people seeking to accuse him. “And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts, he said unto the man, stretch forth thine hand.” There are some critical phrases in that statement. First of all, the Savior was “grieved” because of the hardness of their hearts. He was concerned about them, caring, compassionate. His “anger” did not arise, as does ours, out of a judgmental condemning of others, out of selfishness to get his own ends met, nor out of the desire to control people and deny them their freedom.
Anger is a feeling of hostility, resentment, wrath, or ire. None of these feelings was present nor, I believe, ever is present with God. I believe God’s actions are interpreted at times as arising out of anger because he applies consequences, including punishment, for violation of his laws. But when we look at God’s punishment, we find that it is just—there is no element of hostility or revenge. This is certainly true in the case of Christ driving the money changers from the temple. He did so with sternness, but his motivation was from a desire to serve God and bless his children, not a desire to harm others.
Good parents also apply consequences to their children’s behavior to help them learn the truth. Many scriptures state that the Lord’s chastisement and the suffering that comes from it are for the benefit of his children and arise out of compassion.
One other thing might help us understand the use of the word anger as it is applied to the Lord. Doctrine and Covenants 1:24 tells us, “These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” [D&C 1:24] In other words, I believe that the word anger is applied the way it is in the scriptures because we understand that language and because it has the clearest, most positive effect on us (see D&C 19:6–7).
We should also re-examine the instruction in Doctrine and Covenants 121:43. “Reprov[e] betimes with sharpness.” [D&C 121:43] I suggest that sharpness here means pointedly, in a very direct, confronting way, so that we will not be misunderstood, “then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved lest he esteem thee to be his enemy.” I suggest that the only way we can really show that increase in love, unless it be some time afterwards, is to have not been angry in the first place, but to truly have been moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
-
Too bad my mother isn't still alive. She could really contribute to this thread. Raw oysters, tripe, head cheese, salmon cheeks . . . I can recall as a little kid seeing cow tongue and pickled pigs feet in the fridge. There wasn't much she didn't try from old-school american fare.
-
ETA: About doggies being food.. I remember a trip to China with my family and stepping off a train from one city to another and seeing live dogs in cages being sold for food. Most looked like mutts but they had St. Bernard (purebred, I doubt it but close enough in stock) going for a hefty price. I remember wanting to get a puppy but my dad explained to me that these dogs were intended as food and not as pets!
I can well recall in Cabanatuan, riding a trike on the south end of town up high above the waterway, headed east on a road where there was a very large cement pad and several pavilion-like roofing structures. Under the roofing areas, in the shade was about 10 kennels, each filled with several mutt dogs.
A couple days later when we passed this same site, the kennels were gone, the dogs were gone, and there were numerous charcoal piles every 10 feet or so with supports on each side typical of a roasting spit. I'm not against meat eating, or even harvesting my own animals. I've done it with deer, pigs, chickens, rabbits, turkeys, etc, etc. But, being raised in a culture where dogs are companions not food, passing by that site and seeing how many dogs were cooked there was a little hard to stomach.
I should dig out my mission photos of dogs on spits, and one companion holding a roasted dog head. On second thought, I think I'll pass reliving those particular memories.
-
Itlog na Malatt - a Philippino salted duck egg. Man was I glad there was a coke nearby to wash that nasty thing down! lol (although Bini and Anatess might disagree about it being nasty, I recall having a hard time choking it down)
I watched my companions eat Balut. After watching them pull a duck bill and feathers out of their teeth, there was no way I would try it. Same goes for the many dogs I saw on spitts. Still looked like fido to me, just with no hair - couldn't eat it.
-
Wow. That was . . . well . . . impressive, but not in a good way. Is this a sensitve hot-button issue for you? Sure seemed to have struck some sort of nerve!You have some nerve coming here to ask others to help you assume your wife is cheating on you. Grow up! I would personally run to hell for a few days just to get away from your insecurities. Come back when you KNOW she has cheated. At at this point, I can't blame her if she did. You have got to be kidding............
-
The absence of grand offenses does not equal being a "good" spouse. I dare say that in the majority of affair situations, the cheated on spouse has a major role in the cheating spouse's motivation to do so. Usually (and there most certainly are exceptions) an affair is started because of unmet needs - and those needs are being unmet by the cheated on spouse.I have been a good husband to her. I have never cheated on her or anything.
Go read Dr. Harley's His Need, Her Needs - How to affair proof your marriage. He will explain better what I am getting at. That if she did indeed cheat on you, it is highly likely you had a large part in her decision to do so.
-
Here's a fact useless for most people:
Male snakes have two . . . uhm . . . reproductive organs. Common gartersnakes have been studied and found to be right . . . well . . . 'handed' (for lack of a better word). They are generally ambidextrous, but favor using their right . . . 'organ'.
-
I could only speculate as to why there is a struggle, but I would bet it has roots in lay ministry that are often overburdened with many pressing matters. It is interesting to me that my Bishop of less than a year in the position, was able to explain to me the process, show me the forms, and had a full understanding of it. Didn't seem to be a problem in my most recent ex-ward.Does any one know why this is such a struggle? Its definitely a systemic misunderstanding and lack of education on the process by bishops in general.
-
Wow.I . . . tell them this is dumb . . .
doesn't give people the right to. . . judge.
And, so, you are going to judge LM, without knowing him, as someone in your "don't like" list, simply based on a screen name?
Wow. -
What on earth was that for?I equate loudmouth Mormons to judgmental ones. Just FYI.
And how does it in any way relate to this thread? 
-
Prior to ever being married, I probably might have said yes to the original question - if there was a special spark of love there.
Having experienced a marriage that ended after 15 years of difficulty, I say "absolutely not" to the original question. Knowing what I know now, about both myself, and how typical relationships work from copious reading on the subject (attempting to overcome the difficulties), I say that for most people (there are always exceptions), physical intimacy is a critical lubricant for proper functioning of a marriage.
MM - I've posted it on here before, and don't want to recount it right now, but I did get an answer that it was right to marry my ex. It was very clear, and was repeated to me. I don't think that such a answer that "it is right" will preclude extreme sexual dysfunction. Nor does it mean that your spouse won't eventually choose to give up and leave even though Heavenly Father said the union was "right". So, I think in large part, we are left to simply trust that Heavenly Father will warn us (if we are listening) that the choice we are making is not good or right. And, if we have difficulties, it is in part because it was his plan for our growth and development. I look at your 'weak' situation (the decade of extreme difficulty) and see now how it has been made 'strong'. I'd never have wished that on you personally, but I don't doubt that Heavenly Father has consecrated it for your eternal gain. And so it will be for all such marriage difficulties IMO.
-
In a number of talks, Elder Bednar has commented on how his wife does it. She prays for discernment and eyes to see who can use her help.
-
We see so many of these threads here. The key factor for me in this thread, sbg320's husband, CopenKagen's wife, Milliani's husband, and countless other stories recounted on lds.net is not that there exists and issue, but that the (one-sided) recounting of the situation shows an unwillingness of a party to seek solutions. Abused in the past or not, conscious of it or not, adverse or just apathetic to intimacy, the real issue is the unwillingness to be a partner and helpmeet and improve a situation that is difficult for a spouse.
Serious health issues, psychological issues, or whatever, there usually is little excuse for not seeking help and betterment of a situation. Even if in only very small degrees. If someone chooses to be the “powerholder” and maintain the status quo to the detriment of their spouse, then they are the ones in the wrong IMO. And the past is a moot point, not even worth bringing up except in context of what are they going to do about it. We all have our issues of the past, but they never are an excuse for sitting on one’s hands and letting a spouse suffer.
-
In providing for a contractual relationship, States do not contemplate the necessity of having children. Rather, States expect that a marriage contract is being entered into for the purposes of a real marriage (the interpersonal relationship), not a marriage for financial or convenience reasons only. I did hear recently that some states still have laws that mandate a marriage be consummated in order to be valid and binding. Apparently the purpose being to prevent two friends who have no intent of having a marriage type relationship from entering the contract only for the benefits of the legal classification.the reason unconsummated marriages have grounds for annulment (as i've always understood it) was that it prevented children. children are an expectation of marriage not sex.
-
-
Well, if you listen to many of the sexperts on this forum, it must be something that occurred outside the bedroom that is impacting their ability to relate in bed.I've found this is a lot more common than anyone would like to admit and the trouble is largely no one wants to admit it.
It must be a "symptom" of something else, not a origin of difficulty. I can't imagine there is much you can do to help resolve it. It really is between them. And, I suspect the issue will take care of itself naturally. Most likley, your brother will eventually reach a breaking point, a "critical mass" as David Schnarch puts it, and something with have to change. The only thing I can think of is to suggest to your brother to not wait until the relationship is too far poisoned to be salvageable before he demands change. There is a risk that he white knuckles it until the point he is fed up and leaves. If he can direct that energy into change that is positive rather than divorce, that would be helpful.
Backroads, are you interested in reading some of David Schnarch's book that describes this cycle of one partner reaching critical mass and initiating change? I think the book would be good for you and your brother, even if a rather explicit and forward read. I have some chapters scanned and in .pdf if you are interested.
-
You misunderstand revelation if you ask such a question. Rarely is there a revelation if a question is not asked.If there was anything wrong with the ban, or with the statements made by the PROPHETS, then why didnt the Lord give them the revelation to end the ban?
Eewww. This is starting to sound more and more like someone that wants to hang onto a dead prophet's voice over the current prophets. Are you saying that because President Young had ‘valid’ reasons for denying black priesthood before, that we should continue such today? Sure is starting to sound like that from what I read.If anything can be changed then is there any such thing as doctrine? If a century of direct revelation and a clear policy can just be thrown out the window, then what cant??? The Lord had his reasons to take away the ban, but he had reasons to put it in place AND WE CANT IGNORE THOSE REASONS! Explain to me how you can question such clear doctine without questioning the preisthood athority from which it comes? I chose to stand with the God's anointed servents!!!!
Sunday_Warrior: you started the thread with the rhetorical question of why don't we listed to the prophets. I would ask you why you don't listen to the Savior's admonition to not worry about the mote in another's eye while there is a beam in your own? Give up already judging others as apostates, future apostates, or people that don't stand with God's anointed. Worry about yourself more, and others less. I and your EQ buddy can take care of our own salvation better without being judged unrighteously.
-
And yet others have other crosses to bear - like the OP who has a person that is supposed to be a helpmeet who is undermining her in many ways. And on top of that cross is all of the judgment and prejudice thrown her way from members that simply don't understand, or won't let others have their personal weaknesses too. You have graciously exposed your weakness to us Anatess in hopes of facilitating understanding, and I sincerely don't want to say anything interpreted as attacking that. But, while your issue may be anger, perhaps the OP's personal issue is an inability to persevere in demeaning and degrading circumstances. And that is OK. Christ does not expect perfection from her any more than he expects you to never loose it.Everyone has their cross to bear. Some are gay, some have prediliction to alcohol, some have problems with pornography, some have anger management issues, some have no legs and no arms... yet, they are all swept up in Jesus Christ's atonement.
I’m going to presume the best Anatess, and work from the position that despite your personal challenges that are an issue for your marriage, that there are many other ways that you meet your husband’s needs. Other things you do that fill his “love bank”. (were it not so, then I would conclude he is either a masochist, or slowly being worn down and on the way out) If that is correct, then that would be a fundamental difference from your position and the situation the OP paints. Love, affection, connection, meeting emotional needs, all uplift and counteract the difficult emotional issues we face in marriage. But when there is no such uplifting, but only negative, then it does cause a situation apparently you have not faced (and I hope you never do). Having experienced it, I can well see why the OP has lost love, and feels the need to get out.
Thank you. That is precisely my sentiment. Members of the Church that end up divorced get enough proverbial "sand in the eyes" from the doctrine that marriage is to be eternal, expectations of perfection, etc, that they don't need castigation from those that have never experienced it and simply don't understand.I don't know the details of your personal situation but let's not paint those who choose to leave their spouse because of abuse as fighting AGAINST their husbands. It is a very difficult decision I am pretty sure they have to make and most of the time they do it for the sake of their children AND their overall mental and physical well being. I don't blame them.
-
Having just listened to His Need, Her Needs within the last week during my commute, I have to disagree with that last sentence. Dr Harley makes it extremely clear that his opinion is that for the stereotypical male, the physical act is the primary emotional need. This is precisely what Dr Harley is trying to get at - that for the typical man and woman, their emotional needs are different.However, Willard Harley Junior, my favorite marriage counsellor and author of many books on the subject indicated that when spouses are meeting each other's needs, sexual fulfillment is far less of a problem in his experience. They tend to do it enough for the marriage to chug along pretty well. He lends credence to the lack of sex-as-a-symptom school of thought.
It feels on these forums that men have this need to tow a politically correct line and pretend that the feminine-centric line of thought has to be the one solution. I say there is no harm in admitting the simple fact, that on average: men and women are different. It’s ok. It’s the way Heavenly Father designed it.
-
That's just a bit too wide of a brush stroke there LM. We have learned a whole lot, and part of that is that the BYU-istic feminine-centric view that dysfunction is solely a symptom is false. Try telling that to someone with vaginismus. Or large fundamental desire disparity. Sexual compatibility most certainly can be the root cause, not simply a symptom.
Does Righteous Anger Exist?
in General Discussion
Posted
I am not at all speaking about repressing a feeling of anger that is already present. If you counsel, you should then be well aware of the various theories that bring the matter to more basal levels where the choice of how to respond is developed. That is the level I am speaking of - the mindful observer of our thoughts, feelings, and responses.
And yet, both of those resources (and the scriptures and many other admonitions from prophets and apostles) tell us we should resist anger, prevent it, be slow to anger, etc. Why would that be the admonition if it were a "righteous" and "good" thing?Nor do I automatically classify anger as a sinful response. It’s a matter of progression and refinement; learning to yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man types of response. It is no more a "sin" to autonomicly feel anger than it is for a toddler to fall because they have not yet learned to walk. Putting off the angry response to any stimuli is a matter of progression and refinement, but one that posters here are not going to be aware of unless it is brought up and discussed as even being a possibility.