Jamie Jasperson
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Honors Writing 150 Section 109
26 September 2011
Faith and Feelings
In a letter he wrote to his brother Theo in 1889, Vincent Van Gogh said, “Let’s not forget that the little emotions are the great captains of our lives and we obey them without realizing it” (Brooks). Oftentimes we mistake emotion for weakness. The boy who cries when he skins his knee is considered a sissy; the girl who cannot hold back her tears during Bambi is a crybaby. In reality, emotion is an important aspect of human nature. We make decisions and judgments based on how we think and feel about things. This is why many people choose to use an appeal to emotion, or pathos, as a tool of persuasion when making arguments. Eugene England effectively utilizes pathos as a rhetorical device in his argument “Why the Church Is as True as the Gospel.”
England opens his argument by explaining the opposing side. He says, “One of the clichés often repeated by Mormons is that the gospel is true, even perfect, but the Church is, after all, a human instrument, history-bound, and therefore understandably imperfect – as if it were something to be endured for the sake of the gospel” (Jorgensen 220). England explains that he once believed this “cliché,” but changed his mind after an experience he had when he was twelve years old. While attending a stake conference where then Elder Harold B. Lee presided as a visiting authority, England was privileged to sit near the front. During Elder Lee’s words, England felt “the presence of the Holy Ghost” for one of the first times in his life (219). A mere feeling may hold little or no weight with a lay audience, but England understands that the Latter-day Saint members in his audience will recall times in their own lives when they felt the Spirit and their opinions were changed. They will begin to see his point of view because they personally believe that feelings of the Spirit always teach truth.
Following his experience, England began to understand the importance of an imperfect church. Those who believe that the gospel is more true than the church believe in “a perfect system of revealed doctrines and commandments based in principles which infallibly express the natural laws of the universe” (220). England presents the idea that the universe and all true laws that exist within it are “fundamentally paradoxical” (220). The Book of Mormon prophet Lehi taught that opposition must exist in all things. It logically follows to assume that an imperfect church must exist in opposition to a perfect gospel. But England is not only arguing logically with this idea; he again appeals to the emotions of his audience through his use of Book of Mormon scripture. Citing scripture to back-up an argument sends a subliminal message to England’s audience: if you believe this scripture, then you believe in what I am saying. And why do Latter-day Saints believe in the truth of the Book of Mormon? Because of a feeling they had when they read it, a feeling that told them that the book was true. In essence, then, England is arguing that people who believe the Book of Mormon is true believe that Lehi’s words are true. If they believe in Lehi’s words, then they must also believe that something must exist in opposition to a perfect gospel. He presents the idea that this something is the Church.
England not only draws on his own personal spiritual experiences and the words of the scriptures are proof for his argument, he also turns to the words of the prophet David O. McKay. After quoting President McKay, England says, “Most of my profound spiritual manifestations, those that have provided the rock-bottom convictions I have about the reality of God and Christ and their divine work […] have come, as President McKay affirmed, ‘as a natural sequence to the performance of duty’ in the Church” (223). Again, members of England’s audience will reflect on their own beliefs. They believe in God and Christ, but they also believe in the prophet, President McKay. They base their testimonies of these things in the spiritual feelings they received in response to prayer about the topic. Latter-day Saints place great value in feelings, particularly those of a spiritual nature, as valid sources of truth. England’s understanding of this concept helps him convince his audience to agree with him.
In his concluding statements, England says, “we cannot properly know of the truth of Christ’s restored gospel unless we understand - and act on – the truth of his Church” (228). This argument attacks the emotional connection of England’s audience. Do they believe in the gospel? Then they must believe in the Church. Just as they obtained their belief in the Book of Mormon through feelings they experienced while reading, Latter-day Saints believe in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ because of spiritual impressions they have received. England is drawing upon these feelings not only as proof that the gospel is true, but also as proof that his argument is sound.
Much of the strength of England’s argument lies in his appeal to the spiritual emotions of his Latter-day Saint audience. He knows that they believe in the validity of emotion as proof of truth and he uses this concept to make a concrete argument. Appealing to pathos is considered an effective tool in arguing because we use feelings to help us make important decisions. Arguers who connect with the emotions of their audience can persuade audience members to agree with their side of the argument.
Brooks, David. "From Vincent to Theo." The Vincent van Gogh Gallery. Van Gogh Museum,
Amsterdam, 9 Sep 2011. Web. 22 Sep 2011.
Jorgensen, Sarah. Comp. Reading for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Provo: BYU Academic
Publishing, 2007. 219-28. Print.
The words “sissy” and “crybaby” are slang. They bothered me, but they also fit with the context of the examples. Another small thing about the first paragraph is that the “he” comes before Van Gough, making the reader have to go back and think. At the end of the thesis statement, is his argument the title? I think the capitalized words are supposed to refer to the argument that the church is as true as the gospel and they don’t need to be capitalized. The paper needs more emphasis on the thesis and how pathos is effectively used. Clearer topic sentences can help keep that focus. I wasn’t lost even though I didn’t read the article. However, I think fewer summaries would be better (paragraph three talks a lot about what the author said, versus analyzing how or why he said it). In paragraph 3, the argument - if people believe in Book of Mormon they believe in Lehi’s words and in opposition - seems more like logos than ethos (look back at thesis). I liked having one example from the text per paragraph because it is concise and organized.
ReplyDeleteI rather enjoyed this paper! I thought the transitions between paragraphs flowed nicely and the ideas were well connected. You communicated well. However, I felt that some of the points, especially the paragraph about the imperfect Church, also had a strong appeal to logos along with an appeal to pathos. But besides that, it seemed like the paper was well organized and supported the thesis. I agree with the above comment; I liked how you had one example from the text per paragraph. Nice job :)
ReplyDeleteLauren Archibald
Overall, I thought it was a very well written paper with lots of good examples. One thing I noticed was that you constantly referenced a Latter-Day Saint audience throughout your analysis, yet the audience wasn't clearly defined in the thesis. The connection between author and audience is important, and you incorporated it well in your paper, but it would have been helpful to have acknowledged this relationship in the introduction.
ReplyDeleteGood paper! I really liked your introduction, it was a clever way of presenting your thesis about emotion. It was interesting and captured my attention. It was overall well argued and written. Good job!
ReplyDeleteRex-
ReplyDeleteFirst things first. Your first sentence.
In an essay, the most emphatic spot (the place where you can most impact your readers) is the LAST line/word/phrase- but the second most emphatic spot is your FIRST line/word/phrase. A quote by Aristotle is a great way to begin, but I’d suggest that you use only the quote for the first sentence, and then put a period there. (“Aristotle said that “the whole is greater than the sum of his parts.”) Then continue with your “This means...” stuff. Doing so grabs your reader’s attention, and draws attention to the quote itself.
My second big critique (and it’s big, dude) is that you imply that England wrote the precursor for HIS book, called “Why the Church is as True as the Gospel.” Neither is true. England did indeed write this piece as a preface to a book, but it was not his, and it was called “President David O. McKay’s Missionary Journals.” (He edited the book. Revisit those italics on the first page of the reading.)
After that, your analysis generally makes sense, though I think you missed one factor in your analysis—you do not discuss England’s address to his opposition. I’m not sure how Professor Spencer feels about this, so maybe take this with a grain of salt, but I certainly think opposition addresses are a crucial part to any argument and are, thus, something to mention in your analysis. (His is in the last two paragraphs of page 227.)
One last thing. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, REX. Seriously. Concise language. You are soooo wordy! Print out a copy of your draft, and with a red pen, seriously cut out ANYTHING you do not need. Have someone else do the same for you, if you can find someone who will. For example, you write, “The first way he makes his point is by making simple analogies that would appeal to the readers sense of logos.” What you’re saying is, “First, England appeals to reader’s logos with simple analogies.” Or, “England employs analogies to appeal to readers’ logos.” Concise language = clarity and focus.
On that point- I’d recommend a copy of Elements of Style by Strunk and White. If you can find one online, great. Look at the 14th and 17th sections of chapter 2. If you can’t find one online, it probably costs fifty cents on Amazon...and it’s a Bible from the gods of writing.
Hope I helped; sorry I wrote you a novel. Good luck.
Elise
DISREGARD THE OTHER COMMENT!!! Sorry... Here's the one for you:
ReplyDeleteJamie-
“Sissy” and “crybaby” bothered me, too. They make your essay sound juvenile; better diction choices could convey the same message and allow you to sound...wiser. ?
Interesting take, though, in contrast with Rex’s and Matt’s papers- approaching your analysis by means of analyzing appeal to pathos.
Third paragraph- I’m questioning your choice to use the word “imperfect” when you say, “England began to realize the importance of an imperfect church." Maybe it was just the way I interpreted England’s piece. It seemed to me that he was arguing that the church, as a system, even if full of imperfect PEOPLE, was perfect itself- that the things we perceive as “flaws” are not truly flaws, but strengths, and that it is not imperfect at all. Because that was so key to his whole argument, I’d suggest you work on your phrasing there.
I would also appreciate some more clarity in the links between your points and your thesis- you say good things, but I would’ve appreciated stronger tie-in to the whole, “England appealed to pathos” concept. What makes England’s assertion to ACT on the principles of the church an appeal to pathos? Why is realizing the importance of an “imperfect” church an appeal to pathos?
Clarity, diction choices.
Clarity...diction choices.
Good luck, Jamie.
Elise
I just wanted to leave a little comment on this one too because I thought it was fantastic :) Mostly I wanted to say that I really don't mind (at all!) the way you used "sissy" and "crybaby" because 1)it was relatable, 2)it flowed nicely and 3)it sounds more daring. I think we are so used to reading papers written in the strictest fashion that sometimes we don't realize that our argument can be strengthened by using example that give our papers a little more energy(like you did!).
ReplyDeleteThanks! Have fun revising and perfecting :)
Stef
You did a good job! I'm not if we need to cite since it is just in our RFIW book but I'm not sure. Should I be doing this in my paper? Your introduction could be a little stronger. I especially like your second paragraph though. The example of London sitting in the front row near Harold B. Lee shows the reader that London is related to the topic. Overall a good paper.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca
You did a great job of sticking to the point you were trying to make and kept very valid arguments supporting an appeal to pathos in your critical analysis. The only real criticism I have would be to strengthen your thesis statement so that you expand on the appeal to pathos. You state that it is an appeal to pathos but you should expand on how that is done in the writing and that would better the layout of your paper and strengthen in.
ReplyDelete-Zachary Cawley
Yay Roomie! I really did enjoy this paper. I know that you wanted to explore this essay from the pathos point of view, but I do think that the argument would have been stronger if you had included other tools. Beyond that, I love your writing style and the way you treated your arguments!
ReplyDelete-Renee Kirk
I enjoyed reading your paper! I got a little confused about what your argument was in the first topic paragraph and had to re-read it. That could just be my puny brain trying to keep up with big English words. Great Job!
ReplyDeleteI also had a hard time understanding what points you were trying to make within your paper. I think you should try to make that more clear in your thesis. However, your ideas were clear and you explain your examples very well. As long as the reader knows what direction you are going in with your paper, I think it could really work. Great writing!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your paper, and agree with your assessment of English's use of pathos. I don't know if I totally agree with English-- I think our goal is to BECOME perfect, and during the millenium we will be successful-- I don't think that it is required to have an imperfect church, because we have other imperfect churches to oppose a perfect one...but I think it is true that it is okay for us to realize our church is not perfect, because we aren't, and we need the grace of god and the atonement to make up for it, so we shouldn't kill ourselves trying to be perfect. Anyway, interesting paper!!
ReplyDelete