Does Righteous Anger Exist?

[MarginOfError]

You felt it, your human, you have emotions, it happens. What the real question is why are you angry and what are you going to do about it. Right or wrong is irrelevant.

Now why did you have to write this at the same time I was calling you out for something else you said.

And just for the record, this was the statement I couldn't swallow

Anger is destructive and does not lead to progress, rather powerlessness. Those stuck in the cycle of anger never deal with the underlying issues that is causing not only the anger, but also stunting their emotional progress. Because the nature of anger is to hide or protect a person's emotions, it needs to be heavily analyzed so that the person can really see what is driving this anger, work with it, and take the next level of happiness and take power back from the underlying issue driving the anger. For example, feeling sad and lonely is a driving force behind anger, but why are they feeling sad or lonely and what can be done about it? Once that is analyzed, dealt with, and that sad and/or lonely feeling is alleviated, then the anger is gone.

The way I read this I thought you were confounding the emotion of anger with the process of dealing with that anger. Being angry in and of itself does not prevent progress, but failure to foster constructive ways to express and release that anger will.

Using the example of Christ in the temple again, he felt angry about the money being thrown about in the temple, but he evaluated how to let that anger out. In this case, it was to over turn the tables and chase them out. He wasn't an impassioned rage, but a calculated act used to make a point.

I will acknowledge that letting our anger be an excuse for our actions is wrong. Letting anger prompt our actions can be questionable, depending on the subsequent action. Carefully evaluating anger and letting our evaluation guide us to a constructive outlet is rarely wrong.

Edited April 15, 2011 by MarginOfError

[slamjet]

slamjet and ryanh, I'm really uncomfortable with some of the things you are saying about anger. And I'll be completely honest in saying that I think Burton Kelly's article is a fair amount of good advice soiled by a fair amount of garbage. Sure, I recognize that it was published in the Ensign, but it was also a psychologist trying to apply his views on anger into doctrine, and I think he missed the mark.

As a counter example, I offer this:

I also find it interesting that this Sunday School lesson encourages discussion about what causes anger and then puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that we can control our anger. Both President Hinckley's talk and the Sunday School lesson clearly (at least to me) operate on the assumption that people will get angry, but whether or not they sin depends on how they manage that anger.

So I do have a problem with saying that a person who has felt the emotion of anger has sinned. Or at least to say that the sin is the feeling of the anger. You might be able to persuade me that a person who becomes angry because his wife didn't have dinner ready on time has sinned by having set that expectation. Maybe the sin was that level of selfishness. But even then it's so riddled with nuance that it's impossible to evaluate the circumstance generally. For instance, the husband and wife spoke the day before and it was agreed that dinner would be ready at 5:30 so that the husband could eat before having to go to youth meetings at the church. But if the wife fails to hold up her end of the bargain, are we really comfortable saying that any feeling of anger is a sin?

I also disagree with how you are characterizing anatess's argument. She said that anger is a chemical response in the brain to stimuli, both external and internal. You immediately jumped to say that chemical imbalances and mental illnesses are excluded from the discussion. That was way over the top. All emotion can be characterized be chemical responses to stimuli, both external and internal. Why is it that the chemical responses that cause excitement, happiness, or satisfaction is are categorized differently with respect to sin than the chemical response that triggers anger?

For that matter, what of the emotions of disappointment? frustration? irritation? Are these all sins too? Are we not allowed to be disappointed that someone didn't show up to clean the chapel and left us with all the work?

So I assert again the claim I made on the first page of this thread. Emotion happens. Anger happens. But the fact that it happens doesn't justify us in treating others poorly and irrationally. I believe we are charged with taking control of those emotions, evaluating them, and responding to them in constructive ways. I believe we sin when we let our anger (or any emotion, for that matter) cloud our judgment and act in ways that the Savior would disapprove of. But that's a whole lot different than saying that the existence of the emotion in a person is necessary and sufficient to prove sin.

You're misconstruing my argument.

I never said that chemical imbalance was not the issue, a non issue, way above this discussion, or anything of the sort. Matter of fact, I posted my own experience with my own chemical imbalance and how I deal with it. Quite opposite of what you assert I said or implied.

I also never said it was a sin. Quite opposite, I stated that anger being right or wrong is irrelevant, it's an emotion that we, as humans, all have and need to deal with. It's what we do with it that makes it destructive or not.

[MarginOfError]

You're misconstruing my argument.

I never said that chemical imbalance was not the issue, a non issue, way above this discussion, or anything of the sort. Matter of fact, I posted my own experience with my own chemical imbalance and how I deal with it. Quite opposite of what you assert I said or implied.

I also never said it was a sin. Quite opposite, I stated that anger being right or wrong is irrelevant, it's an emotion that we, as humans, all have and need to deal with. It's what we do with it that makes it destructive or not.

I know you didn't say all the things I spoke of, which is why my post was addressed to two people. As for the rest of what you said, read the subsequent post :)

[Connie]

This has been a most interesting discussion. Something i haven't seen brought up that i would love to see some thoughts on is:

Emotion is not something that just happens to us. Emotions are a choice. We can choose how we feel in any given situation.

This is what my mother taught me because this is what she learned from going through severe depression. You can choose to be happy.

This is something Viktor Frankl learned in his experience in a concentration camp. "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." These people chose compassion and love over bitterness and anger.

We choose our emotions. And it's certainly not easy. We are commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to be as Christ is. To be meek, humble, long suffering. Why?... because Heavenly Father knows it's a choice. We can choose our attitudes and emotions.

[slamjet]

I'm going to wait a minute and let the reading and posting catch up with each other :D

[MarginOfError]

I'm going to wait a minute and let the reading and posting catch up with each other :D

And now I'm considering just posting continuously so it never gets caught up. Maybe I can make you angry that way. *

* is me trying to grunt and intimidate you.

[slamjet]

And now I'm considering just posting continuously so it never gets caught up. Maybe I can make you angry that way. *

* is me trying to grunt and intimidate you.

You are so silly and cute at times have you read my sig line?

[applepansy]

This has been a most interesting discussion. Something i haven't seen brought up that i would love to see some thoughts on is:

Emotion is not something that just happens to us. Emotions are a choice. We can choose how we feel in any given situation.

This is what my mother taught me because this is what she learned from going through severe depression. You can choose to be happy.

This is something Viktor Frankl learned in his experience in a concentration camp. "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." These people chose compassion and love over bitterness and anger.

We choose our emotions. And it's certainly not easy. We are commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to be as Christ is. To be meek, humble, long suffering. Why?... because Heavenly Father knows it's a choice. We can choose our attitudes and emotions.

I believe what Frankl taught was that we get to choose how to respond to our emotions. If we're unhappy we can choose to be happy. If we're angry we can choose to forgive. We get to choose.

What we don't get to choose is the natural responses to life. We do get to choose to be "meet, humble, long suffering" I'll add happy.

Attitude isn't emotion.

Just my two cents. :)

Edited April 15, 2011 by applepansy

[MarginOfError]

You are so silly and cute at times have you read my sig line?

Are you hitting on me? Control your chemical responses, man!

[rex8499]

Emotions are a choice. We can choose how we feel in any given situation

Yes, but just telling myself to feel happy go lucky when I am feeling angry just feels like living in denial. I need to deal with the anger first and then I can feel happy.

[slamjet]

This has been a most interesting discussion. Something i haven't seen brought up that i would love to see some thoughts on is:

Emotion is not something that just happens to us. Emotions are a choice. We can choose how we feel in any given situation.

This is what my mother taught me because this is what she learned from going through severe depression. You can choose to be happy.

This is something Viktor Frankl learned in his experience in a concentration camp. "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." These people chose compassion and love over bitterness and anger.

We choose our emotions. And it's certainly not easy. We are commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to be as Christ is. To be meek, humble, long suffering. Why?... because Heavenly Father knows it's a choice. We can choose our attitudes and emotions.

With all due deference to your mother, that's not quite right. Can it be chosen? Yes, to a degree but it's dependent on what behavior and attitude we choose to train ourselves to have. If we assume an attitude of a high level of control, in situations where we have none or lose it to any degree, the negative emotions are automatic. Where as if we choose to have a realistic level of control, those negative emotions are more in check. In Frankl's situation, those who had a realistic level of control, in other words, those who understood that the only control they had was all internal, are the ones he said were more likely to survive. Those who's level of control were unrealistic, in other words, wanting to control their environment, died.

In my case, I did not have any compassion until I learned that I only have control over two things in my life; how proactive I am, and how reactive I am. Everything else I had to stop wrestling with, because there was nothing to let go of other than my own futile need to control everything around me. Once I learned that, my emotions, for the most part, followed suit.

So yes, emotions are a choice, but they are a choice so far as our attitude and behaviors dictate.

[slamjet]

Are you hitting on me? Control your chemical responses, man!

I do believe I verped.

[Guest]

But was it wrong for me to feel angry about it? My wife said that I had no right to feel angry about it. That's not what lead us to the current discussion about anger, but I remember being flabberghasted at the time that she didn't think I should be angry about it. I don't know what else I could have/should have felt in that situation.

But was it wrong for me to feel angry about it? My wife said that I had no right to feel angry about it. That's not what lead us to the current discussion about anger, but I remember being flabberghasted at the time that she didn't think I should be angry about it. I don't know what else I could have/should have felt in that situation.

Rex, I wish I could talk to your wife. Because, her reaction to your emotional response to the situation is the type of stuff that CAN CAUSE very big problems later.

In the Philippines, for example, it is very bad for men to cry outside of funerals. So, what do men do - they express sadness or hurt through anger or some other form of aggression instead. It's a cultural norm that needs to be changed - it is so ingrained in society that it still exists until today even after Catholic schools started teaching, it is okay to cry, but not to whine.

By the same token, anger that cannot find constructive expression can turn inward. The anger could then turn into "more acceptable" forms of expression like depression, passive-agression ("getting back" at someone subconsciously) or even self-loathing. Physically, it can cause high blood pressure, hypertension, insomnia, etc.

When you have children, it is very important to teach the child how to recognize the feeling of anger (it is a natural adaptive response, remember?) and teaching the child how to manage it properly.

Your wife will need to know there are THREE-STEPS to anger - the first is the presence of anger stimuli, the second is instinctive physiological response to stimuli, the 3rd is the brain's control over the instinct. What I hear her saying is that she believes that the situation you were in was not an anger stimuli. That is - she didn't feel it was wrong for your workmate to send the emails (because the 2nd step is not something you can control). You might want to talk to her about that because I doubt she feels she wasn't wrong for sending emails. When your morality is threatened, it is an anger stimuli.

[applepansy]

Yes, but just telling myself to feel happy go lucky when I am feeling angry just feels like living in denial. I need to deal with the anger first and then I can feel happy.

I agree. There is a whole book entitled "Feelings Buried Alive Never Die"

[Guest]

This has been a most interesting discussion. Something i haven't seen brought up that i would love to see some thoughts on is:

Emotion is not something that just happens to us. Emotions are a choice. We can choose how we feel in any given situation.

This is what my mother taught me because this is what she learned from going through severe depression. You can choose to be happy.

This is something Viktor Frankl learned in his experience in a concentration camp. "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." These people chose compassion and love over bitterness and anger.

We choose our emotions. And it's certainly not easy. We are commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to be as Christ is. To be meek, humble, long suffering. Why?... because Heavenly Father knows it's a choice. We can choose our attitudes and emotions.

Connie, the conclusion "we choose our emotions" in response to your mom's lesson and Viktor Frankl's experience may not be very clear.

Technically, we can't choose our emotions - we can choose to transform it, redirect it, do something else with it, but the initial reaction to the stimuli is there.

Your mother, for example, may choose to be happy, but she has no control over having been depressed in the first place. She can transform the depression into something positive - but emotions are instinctive - transforming it into another emotion is not.

Frankl may have made lemonades out of lemons. It didn't change the fact that he was in a lemon. If he didn't feel hurt first for the injustice, then he wouldn't have had a sense of morality. But, that feeling of hurt, he transformed into love... hence the "we choose one's attitude" not the "we choose one's emotion" (although, the 2nd sentence is technically correct - it ignores the presence of all instinctive emotions).

[slamjet]

Rex, I wish I could talk to your wife. Because, her reaction to your emotional response to the situation is the type of stuff that CAN CAUSE very big problems later.

In the Philippines, for example, it is very bad for men to cry outside of funerals. So, what do men do - they express sadness or hurt through anger or some other form of aggression instead. It's a cultural norm that needs to be changed - it is so ingrained in society that it still exists until today even after Catholic schools started teaching, it is okay to cry, but not to whine.

By the same token, anger that cannot find constructive expression can turn inward. The anger could then turn into "more acceptable" forms of expression like depression, passive-agression ("getting back" at someone subconsciously) or even self-loathing. Physically, it can cause high blood pressure, hypertension, insomnia, etc.

When you have children, it is very important to teach the child how to recognize the feeling of anger (it is a natural adaptive response, remember?) and teaching the child how to manage it properly.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a fridge with a lot of dents in it from pent up, not dealt with anger out there somewhere. I liked hitting fridges. Door jambs don't give. Refrigerators gave and bounced back. The resulting shock and pain shooting up my arm was cathartic, at least at the time it was. Now, I'll put my face into a pillow and scream. I live alone, so no one is here to take my man-card away

[Sali]

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.

In my work with clients, I find that helping them accept anger as a normal part of the grieving process helps them heal a lot faster. If they are able to recognise and accept the anger as normal then they will move through that stage a lot faster. Telling someone that it is wrong to be angry, that they 'shouldn't' be angry, invalidates their feelings, encourages suppression which then leads to a whole host of other issues. Anger should learn to be expressed in healthy ways, not taught to be suppressed. That is how it becomes unhealthy, and oftimes leads to explosive anger. Anger is a protective mechanism used to protect our emotional well being.

Sometimes to be able to turn the other cheek, we have to process and feel our emotions to get to that stage. If someone hurts me, I may go home, stew on it a while, feel every emotion I need to feel about it, then I will be able to get over it. I allow myself time to process. For me that is how I have to be to enable me to not suppress emotions.

[rex8499]

Anatess,

You might want to talk to her about that because I doubt she feels she wasn't wrong for sending emails.

Actually, she DOES feel that way. Since she was one of the affected recipients. The email contained things the counselor had been telling me about her that she wasn't mentally ready to hear yet. And it hurt the situation.

[Connie]

I believe what Frankl taught was that we get to choose how to respond to our emotions. If we're unhappy we can choose to be happy. If we're angry we can choose to forgive. We get to choose.

What we don't get to choose is the natural responses to life. We do get to choose to be "meet, humble, long suffering" I'll add happy.

“The natural man is an enemy to God.” I sincerely believe that we can choose a spiritual response over a natural response. I’m certainly not there yet, but I think Christ was. In his sermon on the mount he gave a higher law based on two emotions, anger and lust, and ended it by saying “Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.”

Yes we have natural, instinctive emotion. This is because we are fallen, natural man/woman. I do believe it is something that can be overcome by developing the Christ-like attributes.

it's dependent on what behavior and attitude we choose to train ourselves to have. If we assume an attitude of a high level of control, in situations where we have none or lose it to any degree, the negative emotions are automatic.

So yes, emotions are a choice, but they are a choice so far as our attitude and behaviors dictate.

Yes, exactly. Hence why we are commanded to develop those Christ-like attributes and behaviors that dictate our emotion. Thank you for saying it better than I did.

[JudoMinja]

Well, this has become interesting. My initial post on here was identifying "righteous anger" though I did say that this is very different from typical anger. While I do agree that there is such a thing as "righteous anger", I think it is very rare and really should not be called "anger" at all. This causes terrible confusion about the emotion we know of as anger.

As far as regular old anger is concerned, I have to agree with those who have stated it is a choice. Sure, emotions can come on us unawares and we often find ourselves feeling angry for "no apparent reason", but even this is something over which we can eventually gain control. It takes time, it takes effort, but it is possible- because anger is a choice. There are certainly people out there with chemical imbalances that make gaining such control over their anger very difficult, just as there are those with clinical depression who find it very difficult to "choose to be happy", but even for these people it is possible with a little outside help.

I am someone at the opposite end of the spectrum in that I very rarely find myself feeling angry, and it's not that I'm not exposed to "anger stimuli". I have definitely been through things that would cause others to feel angry, yet I don't. The trick to choosing NOT to become angry is in completely changing our approach to these stimuli. I used to become angry very easily when I was younger, but my perspective changed completely when I started to understand my younger brother. He is autistic, and I felt as though the "favoritism" my mother showed him was unfair. I often became angry and lost my temper with both him and my mother. When I was twelve, I realized that my anger was getting me nowhere and was severly limiting my ability to understand the entire situation.

I wanted things to be fair, and the different treatment my brother was receiving did not seem fair. When I realized that my outbursts of anger were only making things worse, I was able to open my eyes and start seeing the big picture. Instead of worrying about how "fair" things were, I started trying to truly understand my brother and become a peacemaker in the home. Once I started understanding things outside my own little box of perception, I stopped getting angry.

Anger is fueled by a deception created by our own limited perceptions and, more often than not, our own selfishness. Of course we all need to be concerned about ourselves and our personal welfare to a degree, but we rarely feel anger for another person- it is typically when we are worried about ourselves and any personal hurts that we feel angry.

When I went to therapy after escaping an abusive situation, I found myself faced with a bit of a conundrum. The therapist I went to who specialized in recovery from abuse told me that anger was just there while the church books I sought out on the topic referred to anger as a "secondary emotion". When I told my therapist I did not feel anger toward my abuser, she said I did but just did not know how to recognize it because I do not express my anger in the same way most people do. She said I internalize my anger which can cause me to become depressed and I needed to find a healthy outlet for my anger. This confused me, because I was quite certain I was not angry. So I started digging into these books that called anger a secondary emotion.

There are certain emotions over which we have absolutely no control. These are our base emotions, our instinctual reactions to any given stimuli. One base emotion that affects me very strongly is fear. I am very prone to feeling afraid. That fear can translate into other emotions- saddness, anxiety, or anger for example. These are all secondary emotions- a reaction to the base emotion of fear. In the midst of my abusive relationship as I was exposed to more and more fear, I did indeed begin to feel angry. I started using my anger as a defensive mechanism to retaliate toward the source of my fear- my husband. However, the anger was not addressing the true problem- that I was afraid. That fear was not addressed until I left the relationship.

Once I left, I felt no anger. I was not mad at my husband in the least. I could easily have felt justified in any "angry" reaction I chose to display. The world would not belittle me for it and in fact would encourage me to do so. However, because I knew all the intimate details behind his life and his choices I felt only sympathy for him. Yes, I was (and still am) afraid of him, but as long as he is not a direct threat I know I am safe and I hope only that he will come to terms with his own problems and find the help he needs to recover from his own hurts.

He was someone who was "always" angry. He constantly felt slighted by others and seemed to have this need to defend his honor and dignity against every possible threat. He gave me a good look into what it really means to be angry. An angry person feels hurt, scared, slighted, defenseless, judged, etc. Instead of addressing these feelings and the true root of their problems, the person becomes angry in an attempt to defend themself.

Anger is a defense mechanism.

While it may be all well and good to defend ourselves from a real threat, anger hides the core problem. When our anger is directed toward another person it is wrong, even if everything about the situation may make it seem justified. This is because (yes I know there are some rare exceptions) people do not actively seek to hurt others. Every action taken by another human being is an attempt on that person's part to do what they think is right- no matter how warped their perception of right and wrong may be. If we could put ourselves in the shoes of that other person, we would be able to understand their choices, decisions, and actions and we would not feel any anger toward them.

The only time that anger is good is when anger is directed toward sin and oppression- to defend freedom and righteousness. Such anger will not be directed toward a person at all and is why it is so very different from what we typically think of as anger. Such anger, I'm pretty sure, does not even feel the same way that "normal anger" does. This righteous anger is extremely rare, and as such there are few examples- Jesus Christ casting out the money changers, Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty, and the American Revolution are the ones I cited in my earlier post and some of the few I can think of that are examples of true righteous anger.

Now, anger is definitely a chemical reaction of the body and something that we will sometimes feel no matter how much we work to be rid of it. It is a part of the Natural Man, but we must remember that the "Natural Man is an ENEMY to God".

[JudoMinja]

Wow, that post ended up being a lot longer than I thought it would be... O.o

[Guest]

Anatess,

Actually, she DOES feel that way. Since she was one of the affected recipients. The email contained things the counselor had been telling me about her that she wasn't mentally ready to hear yet. And it hurt the situation.

Wait... she - your wife - DOES feel it wasn't wrong for your workmate to send emails? Did I understand this correctly?

[rex8499]

Wait... she - your wife - DOES feel it wasn't wrong for your workmate to send emails? Did I understand this correctly?

That's correct. Well, except that "Marie" isn't a co-worker.

I don't want to get too hung up on this example, it was just an example of how I was angry, felt I should be, dealt with it appropriately, forgave, and moved on. To really analyze my wife's thought's on it being justified or not get into matters I'd rather not discuss on an open forum. PM me if you want to discuss that specific issue. I'm content thinking that's it was wrong, and that every 3rd party agrees with me. At this point, my wife agreeing whether or not Marie was wrong in sharing the emails is small beans and water under the bridge. If you see my profile, we're separated. Bigger fish to fry right now. The email sharing thing happened a couple months ago. :)

[ryanh]

In my work with clients, I find that helping them accept anger as a normal part of the grieving process helps them heal a lot faster. If they are able to recognise and accept the anger as normal then they will move through that stage a lot faster. Telling someone that it is wrong to be angry, that they 'shouldn't' be angry, invalidates their feelings, encourages suppression which then leads to a whole host of other issues. Anger should learn to be expressed in healthy ways, not taught to be suppressed. That is how it becomes unhealthy, and oftimes leads to explosive anger. Anger is a protective mechanism used to protect our emotional well being.

Sometimes to be able to turn the other cheek, we have to process and feel our emotions to get to that stage. If someone hurts me, I may go home, stew on it a while, feel every emotion I need to feel about it, then I will be able to get over it. I allow myself time to process. For me that is how I have to be to enable me to not suppress emotions.

Existing anger is not at all what I am thinking of. Yes, a previous choice, and a learned response to become angry has to be dealt with in constructive ways. There needs to be outlets.

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.

As a counter example, I offer this:

Anger may be justified in some circumstances. The scriptures tell us that Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple, saying, “My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13). But even this was spoken more as a rebuke than as an outburst of uncontrolled anger. (Gordon B Hinckley, Slow to Anger)

I also find it interesting that this Sunday School lesson encourages discussion about what causes anger and then puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that we can control our anger. Both President Hinckley's talk and the Sunday School lesson clearly (at least to me) operate on the assumption that people will get angry, but whether or not they sin depends on how they manage that anger.

So I do have a problem with saying that a person who has felt the emotion of anger has sinned.

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.

[Backroads]

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.

I see many emotions' paths leading to very negative things.

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...

If one can say that being gay is not right nor wrong - acting on that emotion is wrong, then so too can you say the same about anger.

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!

Much agreement.

Anger might be "wrong" persay when we act out in a negative fashion, but denying what we're feeling doesn't help any. slamjet makes an excellent point of getting to the root of the problem of what would cause anger, but how can we know we have a problem if we have nothing to suggest as much?

Maybe this is more along the lines of what is being looked at as not a sin-

Righteous Indignation is typically a reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice. It is akin to what is called the sense of injustice. In some Christian doctrines, righteous indignation is considered the only form of anger which is not sinful, e.g., when Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple.--From various sources

That being said, the anger derived from all the other root stimuli or sources would be more likely to result in sin, perpetuate sin, be derivative of sin, or causation of other emotions resulting in sin\anger.

Just a thought and yes, I am pretty sure I have cultivated almost every type of anger possible and wrestle with it far too often.

I like this definition. Perhaps it's what I am calling righteous anger.

To me, not feeling emotion over injustices is apathy. You might like to say not feeling anything is a great and logical way to tackle problems, but if we're not feeling anything, what's the point?

You are talking about chemical/hormonal imbalance. Without knowing your particular and specific situation, I'll share what's up with me.

I have anger issues myself. It run deep, being a combination of chemical and emotional imbalance and have been a bear to deal with. I have a nice med to help when my anger begins to feed back on itself and is cruising to uncontrollable. However, I've trained myself to ask "why am I getting angry?" Most of the time, once I am able to answer that question, I can use relaxing techniques to calm down. In my case, using these techniques, It has become less and less often I'll need to medicate myself. It has been determined that I'll need these meds my whole life. However, after learning what I learned about the attributes of anger, I've been able to get more control over myself. I've also learned to have a greater capacity to forgive. The main tool I use is the Serenity prayer. Everything else stems from that.

Hang on. What your'e saying here is that you feel anger, yet control it. Yet prior to this it seems to me that you were saying we shouldn't even feel anger...

Okay, later posts clarified that you believe anger is an emotion we all must deal with. However, I'm still getting the impression that it's sinful to feel it in the first place.

So once again, what do we feel when we see injustice and evil? Complete apathy? Or is that feeling something else that I am incorrectly calling anger?

To me, apathy is a bad thing. Not caring, not feeling any emotion whatsoever, is bad. It seems that people here don't like the results of angry choices, which I don't think anyone will disagree with. I'm not saying that.

What if looking at the picture doesn't help any? Should we ignore pain and suffering and not feel sympathy or compassion because in the end God will take care of it? If we feel a little something at a situation that just isn't right, should we shove away that emotion and not feel anything?

Edited April 15, 2011 by Backroads