MORMONISM: STEALING ANGER

MORMONISM: STEALING ANGER

BY MAX CRAPO

It never fails, when I am arguing with someone who deeply believes in Mormonism, I get a specific comment. Those of you in similar circumstances I’ll bet know the comment I am referencing. 

“Wow, you apostates are sure angry and bitter, aren’t you?”

Within Mormonism, angry is a pejorative.  I think this is a corollary to the idea that living the gospel makes you happy.  It is as though anger and the gospel of happiness are incompatible. Certainly, members of the church hurl these phrases at those who no longer believe as though they are magic talismans imbued with the power to negate whatever point we are trying to make.  In debate circles, the term is “ad-hominem fallacy” otherwise known as “attack against the man.”  It is an attempt to discredit the statement, by discrediting the person. 

Discrediting a person is a valid tactic when an argument rests on testimony given by the person being attacked.  For example, “John is lying when he says he saw Bill steal the money.  John was in a barbershop across town and was not able to see Bill steal the money during the time the money was stolen.”  This is an appropriate use of an “ad-hominem.” Almost any other use constitutes a fallacy.

Mormons seem to almost instinctively turn to this fallacy when faced with an evidence based argument. In another example;

Joseph Smith claimed to see God and Jesus.  However in other accounts written by Joseph Smith, no mention is made of seeing God.  In the three versions written by Joseph Smith only the last one mentions God.  In six others written by those whom were given accounts of Joseph’s experience, (by Joseph) all of them vary in significant details, none of which mention seeing God.  The variance in these details is important, because it casts doubt on Joseph Smith’s testimony. 

When faced with an example like this, the response is almost always, “why are you so angry?” There really is no good response to this argument, so they can only shift to an ad-hominem attack.  In the example above though, there are no emotionally expressive words used.  So why does the true believer assume that the “apostate” is angry? A few quotes from recent Mormon leaders show how Mormon theology denigrates anger and may provide some insights into why true believing Mormons make an automatic jump into an assumption of anger, and why their use constitutes both a pejorative and an ad-hominem fallacy.

"To be angry is to yield to the influence of Satan."--Thomas S. Monson, “School Thy Feelings, O My Brother,” October 2009 General Conference

In a stunning example of cult programming, Mormonism extends control over members through the liberal use of taking emotional responses and applying a rational meaning. Emotions are an instinctive response.  Emotions occur in humans, much earlier than cognitive development.  As such emotions are an “irrational” response.  In this case “irrational” is defined as a "non-cognitive" response.  In fact, the amygdala is a part of the primitive brain which developed long before (evolutionarily speaking) the prefrontal cortex which is where we engage in “cognitive thinking.” 

When we accept the idea that feelings of warmth, peace, and happiness are manifestations of “the spirit” then we have no choice but to agree to the belief that feelings of anger, fear, depression, disgust, and distrust are manifestations of “Satan” or in more popular Mormon parlance, “the adversary.” 

It is a deliberate method of hijacking emotional responses and assigning them rational meanings. Emotions (all of them) are a fundamental part of our makeup and our individuality. They serve an important function by telling us how we feel. They are not however, a tool where unseen entities communicate with us. If we want to be psychologically healthy we must learn to listen to our emotional state, both good and bad and recognize that they are an emotional “barometer” of how WE feel.

Don’t get me wrong.  Exerting control over our emotions is necessary.  The following statement is actually a good example of the damage that can occur if we fail to keep our emotions in check.

 "It is when we become angry that we get into trouble.  The road rage that affects our highways is a hateful expression of anger."
--Gordon B. Hinckley, “Slow to Anger,” October 2007 General Conference

However, this statement taken in its entirety is false. It isn’t when we become “angry” that we get into trouble…it is when we act inappropriately on our anger that we get into trouble.  

There is an interesting fact regarding brain physiology which recent brain image scans have revealed.  When someone has an instinctive emotional response, the more powerful the response, the more powerfully the amygdala responds. The instinctive response is referred to in psychology as “the low road.” It is called this because the response bypasses the cognitive processes altogether. Cognitive processes take time and the amygdala houses the “fight or flight” portion of the brain. It takes control almost instantly in order to perform its primary function; to ensure your survival. 

“The high road” is the neural path through our prefrontal cortex. It is where we weigh, consider, and evaluate our response.  With time and practice we can learn to recognize and mute somewhat the low road reaction and re-establish rational thinking and conscious control by evaluating the situation through the “high road”.  It is also why punishment under the law is considerably more severe when actions are deemed “premeditated.”  There is conscious thought and understanding behind premeditated actions.

"Anger is not an expression of strength. It is an indication of one’s inability to control his thoughts, words, his emotions. Of course it is easy to get angry. When the weakness of anger takes over, the strength of reason leaves. Cultivate within yourselves the mighty power of self-discipline."

--Gordon B. Hinckley, “Our Solemn Responsibilities,” October 1991 General Conference

Although Mr. Hinckley expresses the response of the “the low road” quite well, (bolded, above) the entire statement is a vilification of anger rather than a vilification of an inappropriate response. The advice to cultivate self-discipline is good, but his denigration of anger is completely wrong and it is very harmful.  Anger is not something you “choose” to feel. Instead it is an instinctive reaction, which should be recognized, acknowledged and acted on in appropriate ways.  In denigrating anger, Mr. Hinckley is advocating that members reject anger. What we should reject is an inappropriate response.  When people are unable to process their anger, it is turned inward.  Today, it is nearly proverbial, “anger turned inward becomes depression.” In fact, a major portion of healing from Mormonism is the necessity of processing (in some cases) decades of repressed anger.

Taken from an evolutionary viewpoint though, all of our emotions are necessary, including those which have been vilified by Mormon Leadership. Anger is a recognition that something is wrong and you are being harmed. It serves as a goad to help bring about change. Were our “negative” emotions unnecessary, it is unlikely that we would have survived to have these traits today.

It is important to note that heightened emotions both positive AND negative impact cognitive processing. The very best salesman seek to get you excited.  In doing so, your excitement shuts down cognitive processing and makes you far more susceptible to emotion responses.  Religion takes advantage of this as well, by seeking to get you excited and positive about church membership and ideas of “forever families” and “prophets which know the way back to God.” Next thing you know, you’ve been baptized and successfully recruited into a cult.

"Anger, hatred, and contention are foes not easily subdued. These enemies inevitably leave in their destructive wake tears of sorrow, the pain of conflict, and the shattered hopes of what could have been. Their sphere of influence is not restricted to the battlefields of war but can be observed altogether too frequently in the home, around the hearth, and within the heart. So soon do many forget and so late do they remember the counsel of the Lord: “There shall be no disputations among you, …"

--Thomas S. Monson, The Path to Peace, April 1994 General Conference

Every statement made by church leaders quoted above has a purpose. It is to make you docile, forgiving, submissive, and weak. It is to create sheeple who are unable to articulate anger rightly felt. All of these emotions, anger, hatred, contention and other variants serve a purpose. They are not “foes” rather they are a source of significant power…power which is dangerous to leadership.  When leaders are able to successfully vilify any emotion what they have done is stolen power and turned it against you.  Anger is probably the single strongest motivator available to the human spirit.  It is not weakness as decried above.  When harnessed properly, it becomes a source of change.  

It was harnessed anger which ended the Vietnam War, it was harnessed anger which brought about changes in racial discrimination. It was harnessed anger which brought us marriage equality.

Never underestimate the power (or the value) of anger.