Righteous Anger...what are your thoughts?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Now anger is going to be the common and understandable reaction

Right. My point was precisely that it would be the common and understandable response. Also that it would not be a sinful response.

It is hard for me to imagine any other response, but apparently there are others, and some lead to NOT protecting the child. I don't understand that though.

[derblitzenator]

I don't think I've ever been angry, when I could say afterwards "Wow, I'm sure glad that I got angry in that moment." Anger clouds judgment and makes you do things that you regret later. The scriptures tell us to "not be easily provoked" and to "put off anger."

That being said, it's a natural emotion that everybody feels. We can work on how hard it is to provoke us and how we deal with it when we have it. I always have a cooling down period of 72 hours before I react to an event that causes me anger. I want to be level headed when I dish out consequences.

The example of Christ cleansing the temple is not something that is given to us. God and Christ have reserved anger for the Godhead.

[Dravin]

Right. My point was precisely that it would be the common and understandable response. Also that it would not be a sinful response.

I'm not sure if you're trying to draw a connection between those two, that it's understandable and common and that it is non-sinful. Because if you are you've got a non sequitur on your hands.

As far as if it's sinful or not, that would depend on the reaction wouldn't it? If one is fantasizing about beating the molester's head in with a brick in a gory revenge fantasy because of their anger I'd say such was sinful. Now as Selek points out such is not the definition of anger but even if we assume that some anger is acceptable/non-sinful/righteous some anger is unacceptable/sinful/unrighteous, we'd need to know:

1) Where the divider is between the two, or what the characteristics are that define each.

2) What the anger reaction was so we could see which side of the line it lays on however one defines it.

Note, I don't know exactly where the line is, but I do feel one can't just say, "Anger because your child was molested? That is automatically acceptable." Now you are probably meaning to define the anger in some sense by having them call the cops as opposed to living out the revenge fantasy but one can be angry, take appropriate action, and then have inappropriate thought or engage in other inappropriate action (such as say swearing up a storm, cursing god, and trashing your house).

Edited February 1, 2013 by Dravin

[ZionsRodeVos]

It is hard for me to imagine that that would be someone's first reaction, but I don't know what other people feel. Heck, I have suppressed my own feelings for so long I don't even know what I feel. But I wonder, would "sadness" be enough to make you take action?

When people cover up abuse, what emotion or motivation is behind that? I'm thinking specifically of a website that said that the Caholic church did not do more, earlier about the abuse because they weren't angry enough, they wanted to be forgiving etc.

What do all of you think?

Some people would not want to bring the abuse that you mentioned earlier to the police if the molester also happens to be a sibling of the molested and the parent views the situation as a family matter that can be resolved without government meddling - meaning the parent can ensure that it never happens again and gets the correct help for both siblings.

In such a situation the motivation could be to ensure one child is not torn from the home, severing positive bonding with siblings not involved, and then the child removed from the home is forbidden to attend church and participate in church programs that could help and while isolated from family in such a way, is introduced to things the parent does not approve of such as objectionable music and video games that drive away the spirit.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

severing positive bonding with siblings not involved,

Ummm...if one sibling is sexually abusing another, I think "positive bonding" is non-exsistent.

I'm givng myself a time-out now. . .let's just say I strongly agree to disagree with pretty much everything you just said. I'm just going to take a walk and wait and see what other people have to say.

Sorry, Dravin, my mind is not clear to respond to you right now, but thanks for your post.

[Dravin]

Sorry, Dravin, my mind is not clear to respond to you right now, but thanks for your post.

Cooling off periods are good. Please note that I make a rather large distinction between "is sinful behavior" and "the person engaging in this behavior is a horrible person." I'm also talking about sin in a qualitative sense not a quantitative sense. That is to say murder and cursing out your sister because she made you mad are both sins, that doesn't mean they have equal spiritual impact.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Dravin

[ZionsRodeVos]

Ummm...if one sibling is sexually abusing another, I think "positive bonding" is non-exsistent.

I'm givng myself a time-out now. . .let's just say I strongly agree to disagree with pretty much everything you just said. I'm just going to take a walk and wait and see what other people have to say.

Sorry, Dravin, my mind is not clear to respond to you right now, but thanks for your post.

I agree there won't be positive bonding between the sibling sexually abusing the other.

I was not trying to be confusing.

If there are three or more siblings and only two are involved then to me positive bonding can take place between one of the ones involved and one of the ones not involved.

[Backroads]

So going with the idea that anger is bad, what are the best emotions to feel in its place? As LiterateParakeet said, some emotions might not "get things fixed".

I might find something sad. I could cry about it a little and let it go.

I can feel something is injust, something is wrong. Feeling those emotions would make me more likely to do what I can to remedy the situation.

I'm not trying to say my approach is best, but I can't fathom what else I could be feeling? As has been pointed out, one can certainly take action and not out of anger.

I also believe that it's rarely a good idea to take action while in the throws of anger.

Perhaps I'm just being an emotional girl, but really, what else are we supposed to feel when something is wrong? Why would an intense sadness or whatever be preferrable?

Edited February 1, 2013 by Backroads

[Dravin]

So going with the idea that anger is bad, what are the best emotions to feel in its place? As LiterateParakeet said, some emotions might not "get things fixed".

Emotions don't 'fix things', actions do, and actions can be motivated by various emotions or, as far as possible with humans, not motivated by emotion.

Perhaps I'm just being an emotional girl, but really, what else are we supposed to feel when something is wrong?

• Love can motivate us to act.
• Charity can motivate us to act (yes, a little redundant).
• Compassion can motivate us to act.
• Empathy can motivate us to act (though I suppose empathy is what is triggering the other emotions).
• Gratitude can motivate us to act.
• Godly sorrow can motivate us to act.
• Trust can motivate us to act.
• Duty can motivate us to act.
• Knowledge and logic can motivate us to act.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Dravin

[Tough Grits]

Emotions don't 'fix things', actions do [...]

I agree. This reminds me of a talk given about "acting" and "reacting" and the difference between the two.

I think it might have been a talk by David A. Bednar.

[james12]

Here are my own thoughts, to add to the good comments already made.

Anger is an emotion and like any emotion it is driven by our thoughts. When we are angry it is because we believe a person is acting unfairly or some event is not just. We impose our code of conduct on the situation or person and expect them to see things as we do. Sometimes our code of conduct is not shared by the other party. For example, I might be driving and believe someone is tailing me. I may get mad because I think they are doing so deliberately. However, it may be that they always drive close to other cars and they don't have any notion that they are "tailing". Should I feel angry? However, in other cases it may be that they are trying to hurt me. The question is, do they have the power to make me angry. Or does the hurt they inflict cause my anger?

I tend to agree with this quote, "No matter how outrageous or unfair others might appear to you, they do not, never did, and never will upset you. The bitter truth is that you're the one who's creating every last ounce of the outrage you experience. ...Your feelings result from the meaning you give to the event, not from the event itself." (Feeling Good, p 155) Tough words. Of course this wasn't really the question of the thread. The question is more difficult to answer. Are their cases where it is right to be angry. If we recognize we are the cause of our anger should we choose such a course?

Perhaps we can attack the question by determining what meaning we should give to the event which may result in our anger. The actual event causes us hurt in some way but should we then translate that hurt into anger? It seems to me that some children do not, they simply hurt but continue to love. It is actually rather amazing and humbling to see. What about Christ? He did not appear to be angry even when suffering on the cross. Elder Packer once spoke about hurt and how he approaches people. He said,

As I begin a new relationship with anyone—students, missionaries, or those with whom I associate or whom I supervise—it is on the basis of confidence and trust. I have been much happier since. Of course, there have been times when I have been disappointed, and a few times when I have been badly taken advantage of. I do not care about that. Who am I not to be so misused or abused? Why should I be above that? If that is the price of extending trust to everyone, I am glad to pay it.

I have come to be much less afraid of the possibility of being “used” than I was before. It is sometimes painful when one is misused or when trust or confidence is not honored. That kind of pain, however, is not unbearable, for it is only pain; it is not agony. The only agony I know is when I discover that inadvertently I have misused someone else. That is torture; that I will avoid … LDS.org - ArtÃ*culo de Liahona

Of course it is not right that someone hurt us, but the issue here is our response. I find it interesting that he says, "Who am I not to be so misused or abused?" Is this the right approach for everyone? No doubt in some instances our sense of entitlement caries our anger (and hurt) on for many years after the initial event. So in these instances anger does not appear to be the right emotion. But at the moment of the event when someone is deliberately trying to hurt me or abuse someone else the emotion appears more useful and more justified.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Some people would not want to bring the abuse that you mentioned earlier to the police if the molester also happens to be a sibling of the molested and the parent views the situation as a family matter that can be resolved without government meddling - meaning the parent can ensure that it never happens again and gets the correct help for both siblings.

In such a situation the motivation could be to ensure one child is not torn from the home, severing positive bonding with siblings not involved, and then the child removed from the home is forbidden to attend church and participate in church programs that could help and while isolated from family in such a way, is introduced to things the parent does not approve of such as objectionable music and video games that drive away the spirit.

Alright. . .

The problem I have with this statement is that you seem to be more concerned with the offender than the victim. Heaven forbid the offender should be exposed to objectionable music and video games...better to keep that child safe, even if it means potentially re-exposing a sibling to molestation.

Taking the offending child from the home would not necessarily mean they can't attend church etc. The offender needs help too, I agree. However, if your teenage son had a pornography problem, would you NOT put locks on the computer because you didn't want him to feel bad?

Where is the concern for the victim here? And for the other siblings who are potential victims? It does not appear from what you said here that you appreciate the severity of what abuse is.

I suspect that sometimes we are so concerned with showing others how forgiving we are, or that we do not get angry (because that would be sinful) that we go to far in the direction of tolerating grevious sin.

Just how serious is sexual abuse? Let's step back for a moment. Here is a quote from Elder Holland about chastity. Keep in mind, he is talking about a sin where both parties are consenting to the sin...

“One who uses the God given body of another without divine sanction abuses the very soul of that individual, abuses the central purpose and process of life. Personal Purity, Jeffery R. Holland, Gen. Con. Oct. 1988

Alma to Corianton sexual transgression is “an abomination in the sight of the Lord, yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost.”

“In exploiting the body of another – which means exploiting his or her soul – one desecrates the Atonement of Christ which saved that soul. . .IBID

I particularly like that first line...abuses the very soul...and he is talking about two people who are consenting to sin together. How much more grevious then is sexual abuse? Both for the victim and the offender.

Objectionable music and video games pale in comparison.

[lutsab]

It seems, like I often do as well, you are asking for opinions of others when your mind is already set and ready, that you want to stay or justify the anger you are feeling. Anger is a secondary emotion of fear and sadness, which someone who has been abused would most definitely feel.

I personally have sat and am sitting in anger and also trying to work out how to get out of the anger cycle. I call it a cycle for me because there are times when I am doing much better with feeling compassion for those who have hurt me and other times when I think of all the awful ways to tip the justice scales more fairly. I developed an entire blog on forgiveness in the last 2 months based solely on the fact that someone hurt me. This is my way of trying to think differently than wanting to tear someone's head off.

President Monson gave a beautiful talk back in 2009 on the subject of anger. It has so many nuggets of wisdom...School Thy Feelings, O My Brother - general-conference I know the offenses he mentions in here don't seem to compare to abuse, but I think a major point in a lot of these replies you are receiving is to think of the Savior who was abused more than any other person on this planet, and what did He do? He laid down His life for the ones who abused Him. He increased His love for them. Somehow He was able to love the person and not the acts of sin or abuse.

[ZionsRodeVos]

Alright. . .

The problem I have with this statement is that you seem to be more concerned with the offender than the victim. Heaven forbid the offender should be exposed to objectionable music and video games...better to keep that child safe, even if it means potentially re-exposing a sibling to molestation.

...

I am the type of person that often focuses on one thing to the exclusion of others. I was specifically answering what I understood to be your question as to what could motivate someone to cover up abuse. I was not trying to minimize the victim.

Key portions of what I said and what I meant are that if the parent can ensure it never happens again and gets proper help for both children involved. Too me, that statement does not mean a parent is more concerned with the offender than the victim as if it were done correctly both would get exactly what they needed to help them heal and make sure it never happens again and so no re-exposing a sibling to molestation would occur.

When I said in such a situation I meant that if the parent is capable of ensuring it never happens again and that each individual gets the help they need then it is a detriment to the family as a whole to remove the child from the home and then the exposing of the child removed to things the parent objects to can be a further detriment. If the parent can't ensure correct help is obtained for both which help could include consequences for the offender (that are often considered punishments) then of course the government must get involved.

It is of utmost importance that sexual abuse be halted when discovered and correct action be taken against the offender and correct action be taken to help the victim and the offender and others affected by what happened. If there is no way to ensure the offender never does it again then putting that person in jail for life seems to be the best solution.

[Tough Grits]

Okay, this may not be exactly pertaining to the original question, but that is what is so great about these threads...they evolve and expand, allowing all of us to find something that will touch us (hopefully).

Here is the talk by David A. Bednar regarding acting and being acted upon, also it is a great talk about not "being offended".

And Nothing Shall Offend Them - general-conference

I love the following quotes from the talk, they have given me much to think about through the years since I first heard the talk:

Choose Not to Be Offended

When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.

You and I cannot control the intentions or behavior of other people. However, we do determine how we will act. Please remember that you and I are agents endowed with moral agency, and we can choose not to be offended.

David A. Bednar, And Nothing Shall Offend Them, Ensign, October 2006

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

It seems, like I often do as well, you are asking for opinions of others when your mind is already set and ready, that you want to stay or justify the anger you are feeling.

I am seeking discussion, not advice. As I explained this in the OP. To quote myself...

I definately have opinions on this, but I want to know what other people think rather than make assumptions about what other people think.

Thanks though.

I am the type of person that often focuses on one thing to the exclusion of others.

I do that too. I should have taken a moment to be sure I understood you correctly. Thanks for clarifying.

[norah63]

Well for myself it would depend on who the anger was pointed it. Many times it might be pointed at myself for not doing something at the time that it was needed. Being passive when that seemed easier, but not right. Selfconscience about taking a stand when being done wrong, can make a person angry at theirself. That to me is the hardest anger to,' not let the sun go down on.'

Just my two cents.

[skippy740]

I want to add that my first post in this thread... the texting all happened over the course of the prior week. I was upset during the week before class. During that time, I was assessing my reaction to his texting me and his lack of preparedness. Was it me? Did I have unrealistic expectations?

Then he was texting in class, no materials and not even paying attention. It got me upset and it felt very justified.

My response was well planned out, but I did look inwards for a while to ensure that it wasn't an unjustified reaction.

Then, in addition to the "discussion" I planned to have with him, I wanted to help him get a better handle on things. I couldn't have done this if I only 'reacted in the moment'.

I think anger should be assessed and analyzed before acting on it... in most cases. I don't think acting on anger impulsively leads to anything good. Been there, done that... got the T-shirt.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thank you again everyone. I really appreciate all the thoughtful responses. It is very helpful in helping me deepen my understanding of this important subject.

I found something today about anger that I think is wonderful...and I was looking for something else. To me this quote marries the various opinions expressed...but your mileage may vary. Anyway, this is a podcast of sermon in another church (virtuous, lovely or of good report, we seek after these things...this is good report!) I love the whole podcast actually so I will share the link and just one quote.

Dr. Ernie Hess Covenant Presbyterian Church—Shining the Light on Anger

Sermons

Anger is a necessary emotion. It is appropriate to get angry at certain things, things like injustice, or unfairness or evil should call from us a response that is anger. Jesus showed us this. He was unbelievably compassionate with the broken and the lost, but he got angry at religious leaders when he saw them piling burdensome regulations on hurting people or when they tried to block his healing efforts. He got angry at the money changers who were taking advantage of pilgrams coming to the temple, Jesus showed us and the prophets all showed us that anger is something essential within us. It’s a signal that we feel within us that there has been an unfairness or a wrong. Yet the scriptures also warn us that anger may be a necessary emotion but it is dangerous. Be angry, we read in todays text, be angry but do not sin. Be angry but do not sin. Now that means that it is possible to be angry and not sin, but it is also possible to have our anger lead us into a place that is not life giving. And that’s a good definition of sin. Our anger can be appropriate but it can also be destructive.

The text he was refering to was Ephesians 4:25- 5:1

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

Edited February 5, 2013 by LiterateParakeet

[Martain]

Ahh... well I come to this discussion a little late but I had a quote I found recently to add.

"Mormon Doctrine" Elder Bruce R McConkie - Anger

As with nearly all strong emotions or passions, anger is manifest both in righteousness and in unrighteousness. Always there is a sense of displeasure attending it, and usually this is accompanied by a feeling of antagonism, excited by a sense of injury or insult.

Righteous anger is an attribute of Deity. His anger is everlastingly kindled against the wicked. (D. & C. 1:13; 5:8; 60:2; 63:11, 32; 84:24.)

Similarly, an inspired man might speak or act in righteous anger, as when Moses broke the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written, or as when our Lord drove the money changers from the temple.

But where man is concerned there is peril in anger, and the fear is ever present that the emotion and passion attending it will be exercised in unrighteousness. "Can ye be angry, and not sin?" Paul asked. (Inspired Version, Eph. 4:26.) "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause," our Lord said in the Sermon on the Mount, "shall be in danger of the judgment." (Matt. 5:22.)

Edited March 3, 2013 by Martain
fix formatting of paragraphs