Matthew Walden
Professor Kerry Spencer
English 150H
26 September 2011
The One True Church
“The Church is true;” we hear it every Sunday. However, what makes the Church true? Ultimately, we can determine for ourselves that the gospel is true, but that does not directly indicate that the Church is true. In fact, many other churches have adopted the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” as their official doctrine, and yet, they are still missing the fullness of the truth. It seems we testify about a true church, even though we are not sure what the definition of a true church is. In his essay entitled “Why the Church Is as True as the Gospel,” Eugene England uses personal anecdote, analogy, and appeals to logos to effectively show members of the LDS Church that the Church is indeed true and integral to salvation.
Brother England makes extensive use of personal anecdote to get his point across. For example, Brother England explains how when, as bishop, he read Book of Mormon passages to a young woman who was trapped in a cycle of despair, and that he knew that he had the power “to apply the atoning blood of Jesus Christ”(220). By sharing this very personal story, the reader becomes better acquainted with Brother England’s point: that the trueness of the Church can be found easily in its application of the gospel of Christ. Because the proof is contained in the experience of the author, the point is clarified and more straightforward.
Additionally, Brother England has a passage in his essay where he contrasts his experience as bishop of the Stanford ward, where he had to understand the gospel as “idealistic, abstract, and critical”(224), with his experience as a Bishop in a Utah young families ward, where the experience was “practical, specific, sacrifices, exasperating, and more satisfying and redemptive”(224). Once again, through the use of his own experience, Brother England is able to present two different views of the gospel: one of which is a theoretical, big picture view, and one of which is a practical and applicable view. By sharing these two views, Brother England shows his preference for the latter, strengthening his point that the church functions best as the gospel in action.
In another instance, Brother England uses anecdote when he discusses his childhood experience in church, Brother England describes the memorable aspects of his church visit, and he compares these aspects to what he remembers now. He describes the “Singing Mothers”(Jorgensen 219), and how the stake conferences were “boring”(219). These phrases are in direct opposition to the “presence of such grace”(219) that he had felt while listening to the words of President (then Elder) Harold B. Lee. Through the use of his anecdote, Brother England is effective in showing that the church is more than just a boring infrastructure, but a more divinely inspired infrastructure.
Throughout his essay, Brother England also draws upon effective and relevant analogy to get his point across. For example, in order to illustrate the fact that “There must needs be opposition in all things,” Brother England gives examples of how most philosophical ideas come with clear opposition, including “reason vs. emotion….. Men vs. women…. and justice vs. mercy” (220). Through the use of this likening, Brother England points out that all of these so-called “opposing things” actually work together to accomplish a clear goal. By doing this, Brother England is simply warming people up to his point: that opposition in the church is necessary and good.
In another instance, Brother England, spends a large portion of his essay comparing the church to a marriage, encouraging the reader to “substitute the word ‘marriage’ for church’” in the following passages. This analogy clearly and effectively helps to define the church in contrast to the gospel. This is because when the church is compared with marriage, it becomes clearer as to why the church is essential, which is to force us to change ourselves in order to be compatible with the teachings of the gospel.
Finally, Brother England uses scriptural comparison in order to get his point across, often citing the works of Paul, Lehi, or Joseph Smith. The reason he does this is so the audience, a group of informed members of the LDS church, would better relate to the points presented in the essay. In a sense, Brother England uses a sense of ethos through his scriptural analysis, as he builds off the knowledge of well-respected LDS heroes.
All in all, the core of Brother England’s essay is based around an appeal to logos. Brother England uses principles from the gospel, which he assumes his audience knows is true, and logically applies them to the church, bolstering the church’s validity. For example, Brother England presents the principle, from the Book of Mormon, that there “must needs be opposition in all things”(220). Because his purpose in writing is to defend the truthfulness of the church, he applies this statement to the church, and makes the claim that the church’s imperfections are constructive, thereby refuting and clarifying the contested statement that the “…gospel is true….but the church is imperfect”(220). Essentially, Brother England logically binds those who believe in Christ’s gospel but not the holiness of our church.
In a later part of the essay, England uses logos through the act of defining key words. For example, Brother England defines the “true church” in the beginning of his essay, saying that the true church helps us to “gain salvation by grappling constructively with the oppositions of existence”(221). By defining a term that is central to the meaning of the essay, Brother England uses logos to directly address the issue at hand.
Finally, in his conclusion, Brother England states “the church is the instrument provided by God in order to return to him”(228). In the pinnacle of his argument, Brother England provides a complimentary, yet alternative definition of the Church. Through the use of logos, Brother England essentially builds up his reliability, so that he can end with a final thesis statement.
In Conclusion, Brother England employs the use of anecdote, analogy, and logos in order to prove the validity of his claim: that the Church is just as true as the gospel. Through his syncretic blend of temporal argument and spiritual subject matter, Brother England is able to effectively change the perspective of his audience. He is able to prove to the audience that the organization and practices of the church are as divinely inspired as any teaching of Jesus Christ.
I thoroughly appreciate the thesis statement-the tools are clearly mapped out so I'll know what to expect. I could see where you were coming from with the second anecdote example, (having just read the article), but the correlation between the explanation of the anecdote and point you're making was a little unclear. Both the "opposition in all things" and the "Church is like unto marriage" arguments are straightforward and well-written. The "sense of ethos" paragraph was not really mentioned in the thesis...perhaps it could have been left out altogether. I thought that the appeal to logos arguments were very persuasive, as that theme was prevalent in England's article. Throughout this analysis, the author's intended audience (those of the LDS faith) is clearly stated.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the audience was clearly stated and addressed throughout the paper, and the thesis statement was formed well. Your ideas in the essay supported and applied to your thesis. I think the opening sentences in the third and fifth paragraphs need some work. Some of the shorter paragraphs are short to the point that they don't have much support, making them weak. There are also some sentence structure issues in which you could be more economical in your word use, as well as avoid lengthy sentences that make comprehension difficult for the reader. There are also several places where comma misuse crops up; in most instances there are too many commas or they are in the wrong place. But it was a good paper and I enjoyed it!
ReplyDeleteExcellent thesis, the structure of this paper was very good! The transitions were very smooth between paragraphs. One thing I noticed was that it seemed a little informal, with phrases like "warming people up to his point" and the ambiguous use of "we" in the introductory paragraph. But overall, great argument and analysis :)
ReplyDeleteI thought this paper was clear and very easy to understand. Kudos to you. It did bug me, though, that you used "finally" at the beginning of two paragraphs as well as "all in all" before you did the "in conclusion." It made me think the paper was over multiple times and it wasn't. Also, this repetitve wording is kind of weird: "In a sense, Brother England uses a sense..." Not really a big deal but there ya go. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI applaud you for a finely crafted paper. Your thesis was superb, your content was invigorating, and your overall analysis was profound.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel as though there are some minor alterations your paper could benefit from. First of all, the frequent use of "Brother England" was rather tiring. Also, several times it seemed as though you were prematurely wrapping up your paper by starting mid-paper paragraphs with "finally". This is just me though.
Good work, Matt! I'm glad I got to read the rest of your paper, because I really liked the beginning when we read it in class. I agree with what Lauren said about your shorter paragraphs, but I'm guessing that was a result of the, "One example of a tool per paragraph" comment from your ICPP. You have some pretty solid examples, so you might go back and decide if your shorter example add all that much. Maybe you don't need them at all, or maybe you do and you just need to make them stronger.
ReplyDeleteNot that it's a big deal, but get ride of that "In conclusion". Your audience (Which you clearly defined, good work!) will know that your last paragraph is your conclusion.
Nice job! Overall, I really liked your arguments. The shorter paragraphs were a little bit weak because they didn't have very much analysis. I also think the paper was weakened by your introduction in first person. But good job it's a well written paper!
ReplyDeleteI like this essay and I feel like you have a lot of nice stuff in here. The thing that I would like to see is half as much of what he said and twice as much of what you have to say. I feel like there is more plot summary than is necessary, and I really think that you could give a lot more analysis. Also because it is a critical analysis, I would like to see more critique.
ReplyDeleteThe DanielEA comment is mine. My friend was on his blog and I never logged out of his and back on to my own. Haha
ReplyDeleteDeeear Matt,
ReplyDeleteMy comment’s going to be longer than this other one up here. Sorry for the novel; I really am just trying to help you out. Promise.
First of all, I’d like to suggest that you play with your first sentence a little. “We hear it every Sunday: The Church is True.” I think, by doing that, “we hear it every Sunday” hooks your reader, rather than just serves as a weird little detail.
I like your point about other churches accepting the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” and still not being true- the whole, “church versus gospel” thing is kindof an abstract concept and there, you made it easier to understand.
At the end of your thesis, I don’t know that you should mention the Church being “integral to salvation”—I believe it is, and clearly you do, but that’s not really what England was talking about. He was talking about whether or not it was true. Idk. Maybe I’m nuts but I think there’s a difference between them and...okay. Basically, as a reader, it distracted me from what you were arguing about.
I think, also, that you should be wary of some word choices you use—“extensive” in your second paragraph, for example, sounds negative in this context. Like he spent TOO much time using personal anecdote. Or, in another instance, the young woman “trapped in a cycle of despair”—whoa, vague! Um...contemplating suicide? Works just as well and is much less of a cloudy phrase.
I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to step out of the five paragraph essay thing (with the three different paragraphs on anecdote) but make sure that you’re using concise language and aren’t just being wordy. Do you actually need all that space to express the ideas you express?
Overall, you have a nice grip on the piece, but at times your analysis sounds a little elementary. You have content down—now work on the language. (And, after that first draft is out, the hardest part is over anyway.)
Buena suerte.
Elise
I agree with the statement about "The church is true..." I would suggest, We hear every Sunday that the church is true. It doesn't really need to be in quotes because anyone could have said it. The experiences you list the London has could have been explained better too. It got kind of confusing when you said that through his experience he knew all this stuff, when we don't really know what he experienced. The grammar in the second paragraph got really extensive. I would suggest simplifying it to make it easier for the reader to understand. Finally I think that if you are going to mention ethos, it should be in your thesis. Otherwise I would just eliminate that statement entirely because it doesn't pertain to the topic. Good job though. The introduction thoroughly "hooked" me.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Bruno
I really enjoyed your paper. It was refreshing; however, I felt like starting your paper so informally weakened your overall effect because you assumed your audience would be Mormon. For the same reason I would say drop the Brother before England; it is unnecessary and makes you have the appearance of wordiness. Perhaps a bit more analysis would be lovely. Overall great job!
ReplyDeleteI thought your thesis was really great. It clearly defined where you were going to go with your paper and you followed that map. There was a nice transition paragraph that mentioned the appeal to ethos that I believe made the next paragraph about the appeal to logos flow smoothly. I would have liked more supporting details to make your paragraphs stronger. Finally I really liked your use of quotes. They flowed smoothly with the paragraph and were relevant with what you were trying to say. Overall a very nice paper.
ReplyDeleteI think you did an excellent job! I can see your argument, but I think he really tries to catch the readers emotion rather than their logic. -Zack Ellis
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this. I also find it interesting to see how different everyone's essays are, even though they are written about the same reading. I especially liked your conclusion. I thought it was very effective at summing up your arguments and re-drawing my focus to the general.
ReplyDelete