Anger - What is it?

[_twinkie]

Hmm... one day at church the Primary President started to open a door while I was opening another. Unfortunately both doors could not be opened at once. She noticed I was trying to open the door and said, "sorry," then continued to open her door, preventing me from opening mine.

Can I say "ass" here? Well, if so, I wanted to knock her flat on her ass.

I suppose I was angry because she said, "sorry," but didn't mean it. If she had meant it, she would have allowed me to open my door and waited to open hers.

That's not the only time I've wanted to beeatch slap someone at church- the other time was when another primary teacher said "you can't feel the spirit by reading" because I wanted something in written form instead of wasting my time going to another meeting. I guess reading the scriptures are pretty pointless, then!

edited to add... Primary make me angry.

[_Mister Scratch]

I could be wrong, but I have always considered anger to be, for the most part, self-evident.

That's my point, Wade. I don't think it always necessarily is self-evident. I think a lot of times people walk around feeling depressed or out of sorts due to some type of devastation, whether real or imagined, and can't really pinpoint it as anger.

It is not unlike a headache. By its very nature, one typically recognizes that they have a headache.

It's interesting that you used this analogy, Wade. I'm a sufferer of hormonal migraine headaches. They are spontaneous, and have occurred since the birth of my second daughter.

I have had to actually learn over the years, how to recognize the headache, and when it is coming on. If I wait until the headache is full-force, my migraine medicine will not help me. I have to "catch it" before it reaches it's pique point, or I can be very sick for 1-2 days.

Now that I understand how to recognize my headache at the onslought, I can treat it. But before I was able to do that, I couldn't.

That is a valid point in terms of anger prevention. If someone is aware of triggering factors or conditions of vulnerability to anger, and can sense when there is a potential for anger or when anger is coming on, they can take steps to limit or avoid the anger (count to ten...step away from the situation...not discuss certain hot-button issues with certain people...etc.). That kind of recognizing is helpful.

However, I am not sure if this point applies in this case, where the anger already exists, and has presisted for some time. It is something to keep in mind, though.

Also....whether your perception of the reason behind a person's anger is real or imagined, the point is, it is real to them.

True. But, the reality of the anger is not in dispute. There is not even dispute over whether those who experiencing the anger will view their anger, at least on the surface, as reasonable and justified.

What seems to me to be in dispute is what should be the focus of ones attention: should it be the anger, itself, and the justifications given for that anger, or should it the factors (internal or external) that may be causing the anger. In other words, should one ruminate about the symptom/problem, or dwell on cause/solution. My inclination is to put my time and energy into resolving the anger/headache, rather than in justifying the same.

If you marginalize the reason for their anger, they are not going to trust you with advice on how to help them to the next step...

The intent is not to "marginalize" or dismiss or discount what some may view as the reason for their anger. Rather, it is to assist them in investigating deeper into the causal factors (particularly those that are internal), facilitate them in rationally and reasonably testing their own reasons, and helping them to find ways to resolve and prevent the anger in the future.

...even if that advice is sound, which, frankly, I think it is. Taking ownership and control of your life is the only way you can move on from any traumatic situation. And, again, you may not perceive what that person is going through as traumatic, but it is traumatic to them

Just food for thought as you launch your new website, Wade. ;) Is that still happening, by the way?

I appreciate your kind and supportive words. And, yes, my proposed web site is still under development. However, I don't feel much of a sense of urgency at the moment because I get the near unanimous impression from some of the "angry" people here, that they are disinclined to accept my services--and I am perfectly fine with that. So, I am in the process of figuring out who may be inclined, and how to make them aware of my site. Stay tuned. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey, Wade---I know you view me as being one of the "angry" people, and so I just want you to know that I'm "interested." Interested in being a mod, that is! You still haven't said whether or not you're up for this. What do you say?

[_Sam Harris]

Gods love is not conditional, that's why there are many levels to heaven.

What degree God can entrust you with authority and power is conditional. It is based on obedience to principles that are eternal.

GIMR, forgive me for useing a personal example, but you love your sister, but to what degree would you entrust her to represent you in an important situation?

I don't have a sister. I'm an only daughter. My older brother, as goofy as the buttnugget is, he's loyal to me. I'd entrust him to act in my best interests as he always has. He's one of my few allies in life.

[_Ray A]

but I do get angry at any intstitution that seeks to tell its followers that God is a conditional-love based God. That is simply not true. Which is why I stay away from many churches, and many people who claim to be on a spiritual path. But that's just me.

This is a problem I have too, GIMR. I don't fancy "institutional gods".

[_Ray A]

The problem I have with organized religion is it seems to produce divisive hatred in the most devout and fundamental of believers, and when this hatred is inculcated in children, I become angry. This gets to the root cause of my withdrawal from all religion.

If not hatred, it certainly divides people. But I suppose they would go back to the statement recorded of Jesus that "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household". Perhaps I'll go with the Che Guevara version of Jesus. Or maybe Jesus Christ Superstar, one of my favourite musical movies. Jesus has a great voice too. No wonder he had so many followers.

[_Ray A]

By the way, I have a confession to make. I recently moved house for the fifth time in six years, and went through old journals and letters trying to decide what to keep and what to throw out, and I discovered letters which revealed that I was in "anger mode" for several years after leaving the church in '87. Some 20 years had eroded this memory. One of my correspondents in 1992 described me as "bitter at the church". And this was five years after leaving. I had completely forgotten this. Perhaps I've been too harsh on those who have only left in the last several years, maybe even a bit self-righteous towards them.

[_Ray A]

Most of all, im angry that i can not speak to more than 2/3 of my family, and the rest at nothing more than a basic level and not as an adult.

This is truly sad.

[_Ray A]

I understand what you're saying, Gaz, but there are some inherent differences here. You are, in essence, comparing God to a CEO of a company. He's only going to hire the top performers to "represent" him....to perform a specific job.

But we're talking about separating families here. This is where I have problems. My Dad smokes, but he is a wonderful father. He raised my brother and I well. He is a phenomenal grandfather, and there is not anyone on this earth who I would consider more charitable towards others than my Dad. But because he smokes(and he has tried to quit), he is not going to be able to dwell in the same kingdom with his children and his grandchildren? How messed up is that?

Going on that measure, Joseph Smith will have some difficulty obtaining the Celestial Kingdom. We know he smoked at least one cigar, a day after giving a sermon on the WOW, and there was a bar in the Nauvoo House. Rockwell was no paradigm of sobriety either, and Young chewed tobacco well into the 1860s. He, in fact, kept tobacco in his pocket. But he didn't smoke it, only chewed it. Something like smoking MJ but not inhaling. I think it's rather ridiculous to judge people by what goes into the bodies, because all kinds of obnoxious stuff can go in, but what's worse than that, far worse, is what comes out of the mouth. I think there is a record of Jesus mentioning something about this, and referring to "whited sepulchres".

[_Ray A]

The intent is not to "marginalize" or dismiss or discount what some may view as the reason for their anger. Rather, it is to assist them in investigating deeper into the causal factors (particularly those that are internal), facilitate them in rationally and reasonably testing their own reasons, and helping them to find ways to resolve and prevent the anger in the future.

Marginalisation does not occur because of anger, Wade, it occurs by merely having different beliefs, or departing from one's former beliefs. To your credit you at least try to dialogue with "apostates", regardless what some "apostates" may think of the quality of your dialogue. That I admire about you. But until you've been in "apostate shoes", that is, having lost your former beliefs, I doubt you'll really understand.

[_Ray A]

For those who may wish to resolve their current anger and prevent the same kind of anger occuring in the future, may I suggest looking at things from the perspective of the other party. Think about what you would suggest to them to relieve their anger towards you, and then apply, in principle, that remedy to yourself.

How about dropping some of the literalistic beliefs? The "true believers" get angry because "apostates" won't abide by the legalistic rules which they think will make them "top dog" in the Celestial Kingdom. It's almost like a grudge, "I worked 12 hours, you worked six, and we get the same reward?" Is God a bureaucrat? Is he an "institutional god"? Joseph Smith's maternal grandfather repented when he was in his seventies, Solomon Mack. Now if Solomon was on the web before that, and spewed profanities against Jesus, would any human have known how he would later change? Only God knows the heart, and the true intent of people. Judge not, lest you be judged with the same judgement.

I think both sides should be considered, indeed, the "apostates" need to evaluate anger, and the "TBMs" need to evalute what makes them so angry and alienated from former believers. Do you agree?