Lehi's Discourse on Everything (latest draft)

For my essay analyzing the use of logic, I will look at how Lehi's explanation of the plan of happiness has strong logical backing and how he follows principles of logical and ethical arguing that invite us to trust him as found in 2 Nephi 2.

Lehi makes sure that all of his assumptions are stated clearly. In v. 5, he gives his assumptions that "men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto them." Building upon these assumptions, because we have this knowledge and are liable for our actions, we would be cut off if we sinned even once were it not for the Atonement. "Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah." There is no attempt at deception by trying to hide assumptions.

When Lehi says in v. 10 that "the punishment that is affixed [to the law] is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement," he backs up his assertion with an explanation suitable for his son Jacob or others well versed in gospel doctrine. Because we believe a principle that Lehi talks about in v. 25, that "men are free according to the flesh," and we may choose between eternal life or eternal death, it follows that we must have at least two things to choose. Lehi's explanation in v. 11 that "all things must needs be a compound in one" makes sense in this context.

Building on this concept, Lehi makes a logical step in v. 22-23 to why the fall of Adam was necessary to the plan of happiness:

“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.”

If we followed Lehi when he said that "all things must needs be a compound in one," then we can conjecture that the existence of misery is necessary for joy and the existence of sin is necessary for good. This ties in neatly with our belief that God cannot sin, so our temptations to do evil and be miserable must come from another source, so the existence of Satan is necessary for us to grow.

In v. 25, Lehi makes an assumption that was particularly appealing to me: Men are that they might have joy." This fits in to one of my personal philosophies. I might as well assume that the purpose of life is for us to be happy. If I assumed otherwise, I might not be as happy.

To show that he has considered other possibilities as to the grand scheme of things and the purpose of our lives, Lehi offers a rebuttal to an opposing viewpoint that there is no grand scheme or purpose in v. 13. Perhaps Lehi does not bring up any more counterarguments because he thinks those whom he is addressing are not itching to refute his argument. Lehi concludes this rebuttal by saying, "I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things," and he concludes his argument by saying, "I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls."

I am comfortable trusting someone who asks me to make logical decisions and provides reasoning to back them up. So Lehi has my attention in v. 28-29 when he urges me to “choose eternal life...and not choose eternal death.”