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.”

Lehi's Discourse on Everything

For my essay analyzing the use of logic, I will look at Lehi's explanation of the plan of happiness and how he describes the creation, the fall, the atonement, and the resurrection as inextricably linked 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." He goes on to say that because of this law, or the commandments we have received from God, on our own we are doomed to be miserable.

By itself this argument is depressing, but Lehi's purpose in arguing is not to prove a point that has depressing implications. He immediately explains that we can be redeemed from our violations of the law by the sacrifice of the Messiah. The goal of this sacrifice was to"answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit," so we need not be cut off from God's presence by the law.

Lehi further explains that the law is a good thing in v. 10 when he explains that the end or purpose of the law is so that we can be happy, because "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." Here he has made the assertion that because there is a punishment for breaking the law, there must be happiness to be gained by being innocent before the law through the atonement. Lehi does not try to trick us and not back up this assertion, but instead explains in v. 11 why "all things must needs be a compound in one."

In verses 13 and 14, Lehi does my favorite thing with logical statements, which is to focus his argument on something uplifting. He says that if there is no law and no sin, ultimately there could be no God and no creation. But his purpose is not to tell us sad things, but as he says, "I speak unto you these for your profit and learning," and "I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls."

and that the points he is trying to back up logically are relevant to us
I haven't mentioned anywhere how in v. 8 Lehi links up missionary work and the resurrection to this, or in v. 23 how he applies the ideas of all things being a compound in one
~This essay needs to be more focused on how Lehi demonstrates good logical reasoning without anything like deception.
/IS A DRAFT

Ra #3 federalist #2 final

The Federalist #2 by John Jay is a very persuasive essay, promoting a strong central government as opposed to a confederacy. Its point is very clear and the argument is a good example of Logos, although pathos, and kairos play a large role as well. The core of Jay's argument is that the United States are strong while united, but weak when divided. He continues that the way to stay united is to have a strong central government, not divided state governments. Jay harkens to the Revolutionary War in which the U.S. won under the leadership of the Continental Congress, a strong central government, thus central government is equated with victory. This part of Jay's core argument apeals especially to those who remember the Revolutionary War, which was almost everyone that could vote, because they all remember how the states won by working together (this is an example of Jay's Kairos). Jay states that if the U.S. does not have a strong central government it will not be able to protect itself from foreign meddling (not necessarily in an open war), as it did in the Revolutionary War, which was undesired by many because it was associated closely with the war. Jay also states, in closing, that if the United States don't unite they can say, "Farewell! A Long Farewell to All my Greatness," implying that they are great while united, but not while divided, this appeals to the readers pathos.

Not only does Jay have a sound core argument he also counters the argument of his opponents, who said that a strong central government will make decisions only to benefit its members, and will ignore the rights of its citizens. Jay does this by providing an example from the past which all voters will remember. He uses the example of the continental congress, which led the U.S. during the revolutionary war, he states that it did nothing that did not benifit all of the patriots, and did not act only for he good of its members. While this is probably slightly stretching the truth, it doesn't matter because the U.S. won the Revolutionary War under the leadership of the Continental Congress, and thus the Continental Congress is associated with victory, which those voting consider good. He also states that the citizens of the U.S. in all the states have common rights, and that the government will not be able to restrict these common rights without destoying itself.

Jay was clearly a master of rhetoric, using it to promote his arguments, and thus create the constitutional United States.

Barbara Ehrenreich's Wal-Martians

In July of 2004, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote an opinion editorial on Walmart for The Baltimore Sun. The article can be found here, among other places, including the BYU compilation, Perspectives on Globalization (ISBN: 978-0-74093-121-5).

The author uses an interesting mixture of hyperbole and personification with the intent to vilify Walmart. She does a pretty good job of creating a hostile image, portraying the company as an army of Martians invading Earth. "It's torn cities apart from Inglewood, Calif., to Chicago, and engulfed the entire state of Vermont." She personifies Walmart as an alien who came to Earth quietly, unnoticed, disguised as a human, then grew into the War of the Worlds tripod it is today. She writes, "No one knows exactly when the pod landed on our planet, but it seemed normal enough during its early years of gentle expansion."

This method is effective in appealing to the audience's emotions. As I read Ms. Ehrenreich's article, I began to develop a negative opinion of Walmart. Her science-fiction allusion began to draw me into her designs, and I was left thinking that all those Walmart greeters who were slightly odd in appearance might actually have been aliens. This is an effective use of pathos. Ms. Ehrenreich's creative approach to this topic draws her audience into a "1950s sci-fi flick", with Walmart starring in the villain's role.

After creating a grisly scene for earthlings, and instilling dread, Ms. Ehrenreich changes gears and provides some logos for her readers. She cites the rate of growth of the company, (again using overstatement, "bigger than General Motors! Richer than Switzerland!") as being the real cause for concern. She provides evidence of this growth with numbers of store openings per week, real estate purchases, and employee figures. This is a good transition from pathos to logos, working on her audience's emotions then providing supportive facts.

Ms. Ehrenreich continues her assault on the Wal-Martians after establishing a front line, and goes for the monster's throat, accusing them of criminal behavior. She mentions class-action lawsuits against Walmart involving sex discrimination and failure to pay overtime. Surely there are other suits against the giant, but these two topics she mentions specifically to yank her audience's emotions once again. Who among us likes sex discrimination or not getting paid? She adds insult to injury, essentially calling Walmart a Third World sweatshop.

The conclusion of Ms. Ehrenreich's exposure of Walmart as an invading host of Martians invites the same Martians to assimilate with Earth. "Earth to Wal-Mars, or wherever you come from: Live with us or go back to the mothership." This is an interesting way for the author to present herself. In this statement Ms. Ehrenreich attempts to dissuade the audience of her hostility towards Walmart, and projects the position of wanting to find commonality. It's a good attempt at ethos, but as for the "aliens", the damage has been done. From now on, date night with my wife will take me to new frontiers. No longer can I carelessly browse the aisles of Walmart without paranoia setting in. Henceforth, we will conduct our business somewhere safe, like Sam's Club.