6/4/2025

We are all emotional beings. We feel. We yearn. We love. We hate. We desire. This is normal. This is good. And yet, even the greatest gifts for good can instantly turn to evil when misused or misunderstood.

God wants us to be sons and daughters with deep feelings, but with that, we need to develop our powers of rational thinking, evidence-based thinking, and righteous reasoning. As we learn to do this, we make better choices.

As our powers of righteous reasoning increase, our understanding of life’s complexities improves, and as we learn to see more deeply, our feelings also intensify. This is because we increasingly understand the dire consequences of sin, as well as appreciate the great joy and blessedness that come through righteousness.

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi struggled with anger management. He had two brothers, Laman and Lemuel, who were very emotional thinkers and made many poor decisions. They harbored a great deal of darkness in their hearts. They did lots of bad things. Many of the things they did caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering.

Nephi understood the nature of their wickedness, as well as the evil consequences thereof. This made him frustrated and angry. Or maybe I should say, his natural disposition when seeing this was to get frustrated, and this frustration sometimes escalated into anger. And maybe he had every right to be angry, but he understood that ideally, he should have better control over his emotions and be more reconciled to the realities of life. And so, having a standard higher than what he had achieved, he wrote:

“Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am!  Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.” (2 Nephi 4:17 – 19)

“…And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?  Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul?  Why am I angry because of mine enemy? Awake, my soul!  No longer droop in sin.  Rejoice, O my heart, and give place no more for the enemy of my soul. Do not anger again because of mine enemies.  Do not slacken my strength because of mine afflictions. (2 Nephi 4:27 – 29)

Nephi was a holy man. He was a holy prophet. And yet, he still struggled with sin because of his mortality, or his natural man proclivities.

In mortality, we have finite minds. We are singular thinkers. And our awareness is very limited. And so our focus, whatever that might be, becomes our entire perceived reality. This results in a kind of insanity, wherein we find ourselves doing things that, ultimately, if we were really thinking things through, we would not do. In other words, if we were better able to exercise our powers of rational thinking, evidence-based thinking, and righteous reasoning, our decisions and behaviors would be much different. But we are not altogether rational beings; we are finite, and we are emotional.

Nephi, in his meekness and humility, recorded in his metal records for countless millions to read, that he still made mistakes, he got angry perhaps more than he should have, he still struggled to measure up to the highest ideals he was aware of, and he absolutely did not consider himself to be above reproach or reproof. That is an outstanding example of meekness and humility!

Personally, I find no fault in what Nephi said or did, but I think he found fault with how he felt. Maybe he thought he should have felt more compassion and less wrath. And maybe in hindsight, he wished he had approached some situations differently. Perhaps he felt that he had known better than to handle some situations as he did. If I ever meet him, perhaps I’ll ask him for some clarification on this.

Frankly, Nephi is not a great example of emotional reasoning, but I presented this example to demonstrate that even the most righteous among us are not infallible in this regard. To be fair, Laman and Lemuel are the ones who overwhelmingly displayed, again and again, the negative results of emotional reasoning. This is easy to see in others, but it can be very difficult to recognize in ourselves.

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive distortion in which someone concludes that something is true based on their feelings, rather than on objective evidence or logic. In other words, if you feel something strongly, you assume it must reflect reality.

When someone uses emotional reasoning, their feelings become the lens through which they see reality, and this distorted perception often triggers impulsive, reactive, or counter-productive behaviors. When emotions dictate how reality is interpreted, emotional behavior often becomes more impulsive and less constructive.

Emotional reasoning is often based on multiple assumptions, an overly simplistic view of reality, and the projection of one’s own weaknesses and failings onto others.  This often escalates into accusations, criticisms, and name-calling in ways that are neither edifying nor productive. And it often destroys relationships. This is not a good thing.

In any conflict, emotional reasoning tends to work both ways. In any conflict, both parties are likely to interpret the situation through the lens of their emotions, as well as their limited or incorrect understanding of what they have observed.

Self-validation, self-aggrandizement, and deflecting blame are often the objectives behind emotional reasoning. We seek to rationalize who and what we are in connection with our unwillingness to admit fault. Nobody likes admitting they were wrong.  And everyone likes an excuse to elevate themselves to something better than what they really are. We all crave affirmation and aggrandizement, but what we should love more than anything else is goodness, truth, and correction.

Emotional reasoning is the result of conflict. Conflict is the result of fallible people struggling with their inner humanity, their imperfections, and predispositions toward evil. These factors result in pride, vanity, delusion, selfishness, and contention.

Conflict resolution is never easy. In every case, both parties are required to demonstrate empathy, forgiveness, and the kind of meekness and humility needed for reconciliation.

In many cases, conflict arises because one or both parties have a superiority complex. Either they consider themselves superior, or they can’t stand someone else acting superior, as they perceive it. One typical result of this is that they really dislike being argued with.

Not liking to be argued with is often less about the argument itself and more about the emotional meaning the person attaches to it. For some, it’s a threat to their ego, sense of security, or sense of correctness in their worldview. For others, it’s a sign they’re not loved, respected, or safe. And for some, it unconsciously feels like it threatens their status or sense of self-worth.

If you’re someone who enjoys or appreciates honest debate or views disagreement as a means of growth, this kind of reaction can be frustrating—but it’s also a reminder that not everyone operates with the same emotional wiring or conversational goals.

People often dislike being argued with because disagreement can feel like a threat, not just to their ideas, but to their identity and emotional well-being.

For many, argumentation presents a psychological threat to the ego. In other words, their beliefs are tied to their sense of self, and so, when someone challenges their beliefs, it can feel like a personal attack, even if it’s framed respectfully. This is especially true for people with fragile self-esteem and/or those who feel they are remarkably superior.

For many, argumentation escalates their fear of being wrong. Being wrong can feel embarrassing, humiliating, or even shameful, depending on how a person was raised or socialized. Some people are conditioned to think that being wrong is a sign of weakness or inferiority, rather than a normal part of learning.

Many lack the tools for healthy disagreement. Many people aren’t taught how to argue constructively. Instead of seeing disagreement as an opportunity to learn, they view it as a win-or-lose scenario. And so, without effective emotional regulation skills, disagreements often lead to defensiveness, anger, or shutting down.

Some people associate disagreement with loss of control or challenges to authority. If they’re used to being right or having their views dominate, any pushback feels destabilizing or disrespectful. It challenges their ego and status.

We’re all wired to seek out and approve information that confirms what we already believe. This is referred to as Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance. When faced with opposing views, the brain experiences cognitive dissonance — a kind of mental and emotional discomfort. People often manage this discomfort by rejecting the argument entirely rather than engaging with it honestly and openly.

People with argumentation intolerance often become upset or defensive when their views are challenged. In this, they demonstrate low frustration tolerance, a condition where individuals have difficulty handling emotional discomfort, such as disagreement or criticism. As a result, they tend to manifest defensiveness, a common reaction where someone responds to disagreement with irritation or hostility to protect their self-image or beliefs. Likewise, they tend to manifest ego fragility, a condition where someone’s sense of self is so fragile that disagreement feels like a personal attack.

One common barrier to conflict resolution is that people tend to become dogmatic. This is the tendency to lay down principles and personal perceptions as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. This approach tends to ignore complexities. Or, in desperation to prove themselves right, they will nitpick details they think will exonerate them while ignoring other important details that might expose their emotional thinking.

In more extreme cases, people who can’t tolerate disagreement may have narcissistic tendencies, where they view opposing opinions as threats to their superiority or dominance in a relationship.

We definitely have some repeat themes here. Argumentation intolerance, defensiveness, ego fragility, narcissistic control tendencies, and an unwillingness to openly and honestly discuss or consider alternate or opposing points of view are hallmarks of emotional reasoning.

Righteous reasoning is something different. Righteous reasoning requires that one be able to listen, consider, discuss, be open to correction, and admit you were wrong about some things.

Righteous reasoning requires that whatever power or influence you seek to exert in any relationship is pursued only by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—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. (Doctrine and Covenants 121:41-43)

Righteous dominion requires righteous reasoning. Righteous dominion requires that we do not “undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness,” because when we do, “behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.” (DYC 121:37-38)

And so those who engage in righteous dominion do so through righteous reasoning, by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, and meekness, etc., and by demonstrating a willingness to engage in open dialogue, listen, consider, be open to correction, and admit they were wrong about some things.

This requires open and honest dialogue, not name-calling, defensiveness, shutdown, or walking away from a relationship because one’s feelings were hurt, or because you are not receiving the respect you think you deserve.

Persuasion and long-suffering are just that. Persuasion takes a lot of effort. Long-suffering hurts. It hurts on both sides. So, stop complaining about your suffering and maybe take a moment to consider the suffering of others as well.

Righteousness takes a lot of work. It is painful. It is really, really, really hard. Get used to it.

Righteous reasoning requires a deep understanding combined with rational thinking, evidence-based analysis, objectivity, logic, humility, and lots of hard work.

Righteous reasoning is the opposite of emotional reasoning. Righteous reasoning seeks consideration of the whole truth, meekness in correction, and the active pursuit of goodness and love.

“Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me. And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand. Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face. Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:9 – 12)

Righteous reasoning is humble; it encourages open discourse wherein the open and free exchange of ideas is encouraged. Righteous reasoning is not offended by opposing points of view or correction. Those who are interested in righteous reasoning as an instrument for discovering greater truth will first seek to understand, and then to be understood. They are not going to resort to name-calling, shut-down, or unsubstantiated accusations.

One of the most disappointing things I have seen, even in those I respect the most, is an unwillingness to engage in righteous reasoning. This is why I have written this: to help others understand the difference between righteous reasoning and emotional reasoning. I hope this helps.