Does Righteous Anger Exist?

[rex8499]

My wife and I were discussing this, and I still have not satisfied myself with an answer, so I'll open this up for discussion.

I'm of the opinion that there are times when feeling angry is a justified emotional response, and that there is no wrong in FEELING angry. Of course, how you act in the anger is a separate issue entirely. But are there times when it is "right" to be angry? If someone hurt my family, killed them, raped them, whatever, do I have a "right" to be angry at them or do I only have a "right" to feel hurt by them?

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 was trying to think of any examples from the scriptures where people are justifiably angry, but none of them seemed definitive. For example, was God angry during Soddom and Gamorrah? Was Jesus angry when he overturned tables in the temple? Was Moroni angry at the Lamanites for everything they'd done against his people as he led the battles against them? I could not find anything that specifically talked about their emotions, just their actions. Though it's easy to imagine them feeling angry, maybe they weren't.

Of course forgiving is important and necessary, but it seems like there are times to forgive, and times to be angry and put off forgiveness until the time is right. It's hard to forgive when you are still freshly angry, especially if you feel like you have every "right" to be angry.

Discuss!

[Dravin]

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. !

How does she explain versus such as this:

Hearken, O ye people who profess my name, saith the Lord your God; for behold, mine anger is kindled against the rebellious, and they shall know mine arm and mine indignation, in the day of visitation and of wrath upon the nations.

Anger is an emotion the Lord is claiming he possesses. A strict reading of your wife's opinion means that the Lord is not justified in his anger and he is living contrary to gospel principles.

And to avoid deity for a bit, if I am angry with myself because I broke down and had a piece of cake thus ruining my calorie budget for the day am I not justified and am I living contrary to gospel principles? Anger is a word with a wide range of emotions, from disappointment about crossed boundaries to apoplectic rage and thirsting for vengeance.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Dravin

[JudoMinja]

It is true that there is a rare time and place for the expression of righteous anger—the Lord himself has expressed indignation and anger when the circumstances warranted such reactions. Righteous anger is a controlled response to an unrighteous situation, however, not the kind of emotional outbursts most of us are all too familiar with.

Sept 1988 Ensign "Dealing with Anger and Contention"

As with most all strong emotions, anger is manifest both in righteousness and in unrighteousness. Righteous anger is an attribute of Deity, whose anger is everlastingly kindled against wickedness. Likewise, an inspired man might be led to speak or act in righteous anger, as did Moses when he broke the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written by the Lord. But to lose our temper, to explode, to become ugly, punitive, and hateful when faced with frustrations is inexcusable!

June 1971 Ensign "Be Slow to Anger"

Some readers complain that the supposed harsh, vengeful Old Testament God seems inconsistent with the loving, peaceful God of the New Testament. The scales of justice and mercy seem to be out of balance.

I feel that the reason people misconstrue the anger of the Lord is that they tend to assume that God’s anger is identical to their own as fallen mortals—they don’t understand correctly the nature of divine anger.

Lehi gives us a more correct definition of righteous anger. When Laman and Lemuel complained of Nephi’s anger toward them, Lehi explains: “Ye say that he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold, his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your iniquities” (2 Ne. 1:26).

The “anger” of the Lord, then, is the truth of God’s justice manifested against the disobedient. When individuals are not in harmony with the eternal principles of justice and accountability, they may perceive the revelation of that truth (through God or his prophets) as anger or harshness. “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard,” Nephi said, “for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Ne. 16:2). This was often the response of the rebellious Israelites to the consequences of their breach of eternal laws—laws which God is bound by and which he administers in long-suffering, mercy, and love.

Sept 1980 Ensign "Understanding the Old Testament"

Righteous anger is not much like what we typically think of as anger. Typically, we think of anger as the emotion we feel when someone has slighted or offended us, a raging response that causes us to lose rational thought and find ourselves having difficulty exercising self-control. Righteous anger is not like this at all. It is tempered and controlled. It has nothing to do with being offended. It has nothing to do with our own personal pride.

Righteous anger is a feeling we have when defending what is right and true- freedom, religion, faith, family, etc- against the evils of the world. Captain Moroni fought with righteous anger when he raised the Title of Liberty to defend the freedoms of his people. The founding fathers of America fought with righteous anger during the Revolutionary War. Righteous anger defends freedom against tyranny, defends the weak, sick, and poor against those who would abuse them, and defends sinners against temptations and wickedness.

[MarginOfError]

I'm going to summarize a little bit of a talk given by Elder Scott in the April 2008 General Conference (I think).

He talked about the effects of abuse, and spent a little bit of time talking about forgiving the abuser. He said that forgiveness something the abused are expected to give to the abuser, but he indicated that it wasn't necessary to give it right away. Instead, he indicated that if we couldn't find the strength to offer that forgiveness, that we should work on other things, improve ourselves in other ways, and as the Atonement took greater root in our lives and hearts, we would eventually find the strength to forgive the abuser. I never got the impression that it would be held against the abused if they didn't reach the point of forgiving, but that if they could spiritually grow themselves to the point that they could forgive, they would have allowed the Savior to work more fully inside them. He also indicated that this could take years, and understandably so.

Why is that relevant? I don't know. I'll let you decide if it is. But at the time it confirmed to me a notion that I had been pondering that emotions are just that...emotion. You could make a bumper sticker that says "Emotion Happens" and it would be pretty accurate.

In my opinion, emotions just are. I consider them an involuntary response created by the interaction of external and internal stimuli. And I will never hold it against anyone to have any emotion. So yes, I think it's perfectly acceptable to feel angry. But in the same breath let me state that I rarely (if ever) think it is acceptable to act in anger.

If you use the example of Christ overturning the tables in the temple, I'll bet he was angry. I'll bet he was really angry. But I don't for a second think that he was out of control. In fact, I think his actions were very deliberate and calculated. I'm certain there was an evaluation of what was happening and some thought as to the repercussions of his actions and the message that would be conveyed. A temper tantrum it was not.

Using Captain Moroni as another example, he got pretty angry at Pahoran. I don't think that his letter was written late one night when he suddenly realized he wasn't getting support so he just flipped his lid. I'm pretty sure the anger had been building for weeks, or maybe even months. He finally reached the point where he decided something had to be done, and the tone of his letter indicates that he had thought about what his actions might yield. Again, a temper tantrum it was not.

So, do you have a "right" to be angry? I wouldn't call it that. People just are angry sometimes. Talking about having the right or not having the right is irrelevant to the discussion because it's an unavoidable part of the human experience. If you say a person has a right to be angry, you risk justifying their anger, but if you say they have no right, then you load them with guilt over something they can't control. Neither is a good thing.

What I do think we should all have is the right to is time and space to get control over our anger. What I think we don't have a right to do is unload our anger on another person.

[Suzie]

I don't think there is such a thing as "righteous" anger, I believe there is something called controlled anger (which I think is the example of Christ overturning the tables).

Also, I think the position of your wife of that "you cannot feel angry and be living according to the gospel principles" is a little bit extreme.

[Dravin]

I don't think there is such a thing as "righteous" anger, I believe there is something called controlled anger (which I think is the example of Christ overturning the tables).

I think that is a key aspect several of us have commented on. the word anger covers a very broad spectrum.

[Suzie]

I think that is a key aspect several of us have commented on. the word anger covers a very broad spectrum.

I was thinking...how justified we're in using controlled anger to make a point? Is it necessary? (since it is "controlled" it is something we're willingly choosing for a purpose).

[Backroads]

I believe in righteous anger. It's part of justice. Are we supposed to just "accept" sin?

I read an interesting quote the other day, paraphrase to "Adults are sinful, so they love mercy. Children are innocent, so they love justice."

[Guest]

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.

Secondary to what?

But, her last statement is correct.

Your feelings are neither justified nor righteous. There's no righteous happiness, righteous hate, righteous pain, righteous love...

I was just breaking up an argument with my kids this morning - the younger boy is crying because his older brother tried to help him comb his hair and ended up yanking too hard. The older boy said, "I don't know why you're crying, it couldn't have hurt, I only pulled the comb very gently!"... and the younger brother replies, "but it hurt!". So, I told my older son to apologize because even if he was trying to help his brother and he didn't mean to hurt him, he got hurt anyway. Because, whatever constitutes for painful for my older son is not always painful for my younger son and vice versa. So they need to understand that even if it doesn't seem painful to you, it can still be painful to your brother...

Anger, pain, happiness, love - these are all human emotions. It's a chemical reaction that produces the feeling. Some people may not feel angry at anything, then there's some people like me who see red. Niether is right nor wrong. Niether is justified nor unjustified. What they do because of that emotion is what is right or wrong, justified or not justified... so I had to take anger management training...

So yes, it is not necessary to suppress the emotion as long as you know how to control what you do about it. You can feel anger but make sure it doesn't turn into hate.

Coz, you know, that was Yoda's biggest mistake... which caused Anakin to turn to the dark side...

[Bini]

I believe in righteous anger. It's part of justice. Are we supposed to just "accept" sin?

I read an interesting quote the other day, paraphrase to "Adults are sinful, so they love mercy. Children are innocent, so they love justice."

That is an interesting quote. Makes a lot of sense to me actually, perfect sense to be honest.

In regards to the OP. I'm with everyone else on this. Your wife has a misinformed understanding.

[Dravin]

I was thinking...how justified we're in using controlled anger to make a point? Is it necessary? (since it is "controlled" it is something we're willingly choosing for a purpose).

Another way to think of controlled anger though is something we're funneling into constructive behavior. Take for instance my aforementioned anger at breaking my diet. It's not like I have to be angry to not splurge, but I can take that anger at myself and channel it to that purpose instead of moping around the house berating myself.

[rex8499]

To clarify to everyone, my wife and I weren't angry at each other over anything, it was just a philosophical discussion we were having, along with my best friend who was also there and agreed with me.

Secondary to what?

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.

"Adults are sinful, so they love mercy. Children are innocent, so they love justice."

I like that a lot too. It does make good sense.

Thanks for the verses and Ensign talks, those are just the types of references I was hoping to get. Keep em coming if there's more.

[Guest]

To clarify to everyone, my wife and I weren't angry at each other over anything, it was just a philosophical discussion we were having, along with my best friend who was also there and agreed with me.

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.

I like that a lot too. It does make good sense.

Thanks for the verses and Ensign talks, those are just the types of references I was hoping to get. Keep em coming if there's more.

I'd be interested to know what she says after reading this thread...

[Suzie]

I'd be interested to know what she says after reading this thread...

Who knows, she may get angry.

[Guest]

Who knows, she may get angry.

I know you meant it as a funny thing... but hey, this could happen! So yeah, disclaimer: We are not responsible for your wife's anger - righteous or not.

[ryanh]

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.

[ryanh]

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.

Secondary to what?

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.

See the article link above. The author does address the roots of anger, and how anger is a result, not the original response.

[skippy740]

Doctrine & Covenants 121:43

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

The LORD has shown anger many times in the scriptures.

Then, of course, there's Yoda:

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

[Gatekeeper]

Also, I think the position of your wife of that "you cannot feel angry and be living according to the gospel principles" is a little bit extreme.

Well said.

[Backroads]

Looking over these, especially that Burton quote... just how are we defining anger when it comes righteous anger?

[Sali]

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.

[Maureen]

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

Neither give place to the devil. (Ephesians 4:26-27)

M.

[slamjet]

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 judgement. For us, we are commanded to enlarge our capacity to forgive.

[Fira]

Ephesians 4: 26 I recommend reading.

[Avrham]

The only one I know who has Righteous anger is Jesus Christ both old and new testament and this theme has seen too continue through modern Revelation , but good luck on anyone trying to justify being angry on a righteous note:):)