Rhetoric plays a vital role in our gospel. Rhetoric is the art of using language persuasively. Where more do we use this tool then in our religion? The most important work in our religion today is that of missionary work. The Lord has commanded the people with his gospel to bring it to all other nations and tongues. To accomplish this task, we have to use rhetoric on a daily basis. Probably the greatest effect we see today is the use of rhetoric by missionaries. By using language persuasively, they can bring the spirit into a home and have it testify to that person that what they are saying is true. This can only work through the Spirit. The Lord is the best user of rhetoric. Missionaries and church members use rhetoric to present what we feel is best for the person to hear. However, Heavenly Father is the true teacher in this instance. He knows the person better than we could ever hope to. He knows what will convince this person, and in many instances puts words in the teachers mind to say. Therefore, I suggest that rhetoric is the greatest tool we can use in our church today, in that bringing people to the gospel is our unifying goal. There are many examples in the Book of Mormon where teachers use rhetoric. Abinadi was brought before the king Noah for preaching the gospel to the people. He testifies of the coming of Jesus the Christ, and urges the wicked king to repent or be destroyed. King Noah does not heed the counsel and kills Abinadi. The use of rhetoric, however, was not wasted on Alma, Noah’s priest. Alma, influenced by the preaching of the prophet, flees the kings court and eventually becomes the prophet himself. He is instrumental in hundreds of baptisms and conversions by using the teachings of Abinadi. In this example, we can see how important rhetoric is. However, rhetoric loses its power when not taught with the influence of the Spirit. The power of rhetoric comes from the ability of the user to listen to the promptings of the Spirit, to say or write what the listener or reader needs to hear. Also, the spirit will prompt the listener or reader of rhetoric to receive it in a way that is best for him. Rhetoric is very instrumental in the hands of missionaries and prophets. Therefore, I suggest that it is one of the most important things to learn how to use in this day and age of our church.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Rhetoric as a tool in missionary work
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment isn't intended as a critique, but merely as a question. Why is it that rhetoric in other churches, has the ability to induce pseudo-Spirit feelings that often parallel the ones we feel in church? I expect the answers that say 'because they possess a form of godliness, God is going to help them out too' but the feelings projected through their religion, are depicted with detail that is equal in power and insight to ours.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that many other churches have same feelings of spirituality as our church does. When listening to a Baptist congregation sing, or any church choir, I myself feel the same Spirit there that I feel in testimony meeting. Why is this? It is hard to say. I would expect God to only make his presence in the true church. However, I truly believe that in regards to rhetoric, the Spirit can only be there when the rhetoric being used is true. It is impossible for Him to allow feelings of warmth and truth flow to someone receiving false teachings.
ReplyDeleteThere is a major fallacy in your argument when you agree that you feel the same feelings at other churches, but that the spirit is a phenomena of the rhetoric of truthfulness, bestowed as a blessing from god. Do you recognize the contradiction? Plus assumptions in your rebuttal fall prey to the idea that is positioned in my comment as a shallow solution that cannot be the real answer. When you say 'in regards to rhetoric' in your comment you disprove the unity of the church and rhetoric that your whole post is about. Also I'm not just talking about music, as you cite in your example of personal experience. I'm talking about sermons and the whole lot, in my first comment.
ReplyDeleteI agreed that the feeling of the spirit can touch us when experiencing teachings and happenings that coincide with the true gospel and doctrine. An example of this was the example of music. The spirit can be at two different churches, as some have similarities, like music. Also, by rhetoric i meant the application of rhetoric into our church. Moving away from music and rhetoric, I agree with you that some churches have the same feelings as ours does in regards to sermons and the whole lot. But I believe there is a defining experience that every true believer has, that allows them to discern between complete truth and semi truth. It will be different for everyone. Maybe it will be through the missionaries application of rhetoric, the Book of Mormon, or other uses of rhetoric. It is our job as the people with the truth to spread the light to others.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the intersection of rhetoric and truth? You try to posit it in our church and the feelings that are presented, but in other religions people receive visions, and spiritual confirmation of their interpretation of truths and this cements them to their original religion. When they are introduced to our gospel, God has already given them confirmation that their prior religion is true so they reject the gospel even after missionaries have tried to bring in the spirit, and use the book of mormon and rhetoric to convert. You're Utopian vision of people receiving discerning experiences in conversion, allowing them to make distinctions of truth, has proven unfeasible. You try to specify rhetorical use in our church but truly there is no differentiation to be made except through the spirit, and I've already advocated that the power of confirmation in other religions is sometimes a means that god uses to disillusion people to our church. How do people escape the temptations of Old Scratch when they don't receive the experience of discernment? It's kind of funny the way that you explain that people have to have the spirit to receive the discerning experience, but where do they receive it? you indicate it's through discerning experiences! it's a vicious circle with no beginning except a leap of faith that is based on a leap of faith! Give a better warrant regarding the defining/discerning experience.
ReplyDeleteI feel that you both need to recognize the fact that both the Spirit and rhetoric aren't tied down to one form of religion, or one instance, or even together. Everything is subjective. Rhetoric can be used for bad or good. It can invite the Spirit or chase it away. Likewise, the Spirit isn't required to be where rhetoric is, truthful or not. Someone can express truthful rhetoric in a way that drives away the Spirit. There is no "good" answer to your question because every situation is different. We can experience happy feelings without truly feeling the Spirit. Subjectivity is key.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou need more structure to clearly define how rhetoric and the spirit are different. You say that rhetoric converted Alma, but the Spirit allowed him to be open to that rhetoric. This is fundamentally wrong. The Spirit converts people, rhetoric is merely verbal communication. So you could say that the Spirit testified of Abinadi's arguments, which convinced Alma of their truthfulness. Another example of this is when Jesus calls Simon called Peter and Andrew to leave their nets and follow him. There is no lengthy rhetoric included other than "Be fishers of men", (though it is possible that that was left out). Again, it is the Spirit that converts and convinces, not words.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Spirit being present in other churches debate: I would refer you to the Light of Christ verses the gift of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. Other congregations and faiths can have the Holy Ghost present, but not as a constant companion. The Light of Christ, which everyone on this earth possesses allows us to be sensitive to the Spirit even if we do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit cannot testify of anything that is not true. However, I would ask, what do you define as true teachings? If you're following the commandments to fulfill your dharma instead of proving yourself in this temporal realm is it still a true teaching? Or what about at church when someone gives a talk and says something that is untrue about church history? I think the Spirit can still be present and testify of the main message of their talk, but not of the truthfulness of that particular teaching.
Austin- I do not understand what you mean with your first example in your last response. Why would God 'tell' them that their religion is true when ours is the true church? Joseph Smith prayed and prayed for knowledge of the true church. When asking, he received a stupor of thought. None of them were true! This proves that if someone asks with real intent if our gospel is true, after have putting forth the effort, the spirit will testify to them of its truthfulness. Moving on to rhetoric- rhetoric is simply a means that God uses through us to convince others of the truthfulness of the gospel. the cycle you speak of starts with rhetoric. whether it be through missionaries or the book of mormon, rhetoric is a fundamental principle in the conversion process
ReplyDeleteSarah- I agree with you that rhetoric is not tied down to this gospel or even the spirit. However, this is exactly the relationship I am writing about! I also agree with you that rhetoric can be used for good or bad- look at the example of Amalickiah. But my comment was titled 'Rhetoric as a tool in missionary work' not 'rhetoric can only be used for good.' I realize it can be used for both, but my paper focuses on the use of it in missionary work. I also realize rhetoric does not always have to be where rhetoric is. In the example of missionary work however, it does.
ReplyDeleteErika- I might need some more 'structure', as you put it. However, I disagree with you in that rhetoric and the spirit are so different. Again, our Heavenly Father USES rhetoric as a tool. Rhetoric can be used as a tool for conversion. You say its just verbal communication. Many times conversion starts with verbal communication! People are not just converted through feelings! New student to this gospel need to be taught. This is why missionary work is so important. By stating your definition, you also have to concede that missionary work is useless.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely on your second paragraph.
oh, Spencer- you haven't read any stories of other religions or discussed with other people experiences that they have had in relation to spirituality. so i wouldn't expect you to understand my first example. talk to non Mormon people and you will soon find that everyone receives the defining experience you describe where they can feel the spirit. they feel it the same when the missionaries come or when they go to a Mormon church. expand thy perspective! growing up in the church and being utterly and completely out of contact with other ways that feeling is described outside of our church guarantees you won't understand my comment until you finally experience a new category of truth, kind of like the multiple spiritual confirmations revealed to Pi in the assigned reading. Different, but some aspects are similar. Plus you fail to understand or address my argument in the comment before. you say that rhetoric comes first, but it is motivated by an initial valuation or action that is determined by the experience it is supposed to cause! you don't understand the cycle whatsoever. for them to go to receive the missionaries or believe the content that is taught, they have to already have the spirit through a prior experience, which must come from a prior experience including the use of rhetoric and it goes on almost infinitely.
ReplyDeleteSarah- very good post! I agree with you to an extent however, we fundamentally differ in the way that you ignore that the spirit manifests itself to us, then we have to convey it verbally, or through some sign system if we are trying to achieve the ends that Spencer advocates. When we are unable to communicate with expression, we mess up the entire process by having no effective sender, and the message is inherently obscured. On the topic of subjectivity, in my wall post I discuss the way that empathy in communication and rhetoric, allows us to construct the pathways that lead to confirmation of universal truths. Subjectivity is key but it's only useful insofar as we merge horizons. When experiences and rhetoric convey a message that isn't what we accept as truthful, but is something that they accept as so, in our subjectivity we cannot communicate effectively due to the lack of common ground. The experiences described above cement us in a fruitless struggle for a meaningless goal. Unless we embrace the alternative of pure empathetic thought reconstruction, or God sends a miracle there will be little progress.
Erika- I was waiting for someone to make the light of christ extension because it's highly predictable. However, this argument fails to take into account the way that god would be leading people away from the church by giving manifestations such as dreams and experiences, that are more spiritually overwhelming and logical, than the teachings of missionaries. I have multiple friends who have experienced this. Also by making this assertion you assume that people are experiencing things of a spiritual nature in separate degrees, however the intrinsic nature of the light of Christ vs. the holy spirit proves that it is supposed to be weaker, however people experience it stronger! this just isn't an argument that can be advocated, it's riddled with problems like a chunk of swiss cheese. In regards to the spirit expressing itself when "good" actions are taken (mentioned at the end of the 2nd paragraph), if we this argument was completely true, we would have no way to bifurcate teachings that are correct or aren't. Discuss this with me later if you want, I have more analysis but my hand is cramping.
Spencer - I totally agree with you. I thought your paper was great, and I really enjoyed the focus on missionary work.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good point, but is does a missionaries rhetorical skill play any role in helping convince investigators of the churches truth? Just another add on question, but good paper overall.
ReplyDeleteI like that you guys are having discussions in the comments--the interaction is the whole point of the blog. Careful on the tone, and not to attack each other or each other's ideas.
ReplyDeleteI thought missionary work was a great focus with which to explore the question of rhetoric and the gospel--good job.