Prophet Avoids Repetitive Nature

The whole university rushed to the Marriott Center Tuesday morning - some as early as 8 a.m. for the 11 a.m. devotional by the prophet. The heavily concentrated Mormon population would take any chance they get to listen to the most credible man on the Earth. They wanted to hear the message which the voice of the Lord was about to announce.

What interested me was that this man, who could choose any of the popularly spoken topics of the church such as the importance of scripture study, keeping an eternal perspective, and maintaining your testimony, chose to talk about prophets he had known in his lifetime. I assume that he understood we already knew these vital spiritual messages - they have been ingrained in our minds so that they may become second-nature. Undoubtedly, they are still important because they are always commented about in General Conference to the general Mormon public.

Yet President Monson takes into account that the students at BYU are strong members (hence their choice of BYU as their education for the next four years). He assumes that we are aware of scripture study, keeping eternal perspective and maintaining our testimony. Hence, President Monson appeals to the well-informed, orthodox Latter-Day Saints by teaching them unfamiliar topics. Who out of the audience would have been able to supply such specific details of the prophets' personalities and attributes before hand? I conclude that not very many. By including specific details, students develop a stronger faith in the men who have run the church in the past and who built up the principles we are learning about today. President Monson pointed out the credibility of these men so their messages may become more applicable. He took a step further than lecturing a repetitive spiritual message. Instead, he gave meaning to the origin of these spiritual lectures we always hear. Because of this, students establish a foundation for future spiritual talks and greater depth of their application to their lives.

Clearly emphasizing a learning atmosphere, Monson discusses the lives of prophets that he knew. We typically look at the prophets as the most righteous men, and we look at the messages they have delivered in the past. However, President Monson includes real details such as their favorite foods and funny things they had said. In this way, the prophets of his time truly became real to us as students of a separate generation. We become familiar with the kind of people they truly were. These prophets were no longer so distant - they didn't appear as powerful, influential prodigies but instead, friendly and real people.

For instance, President Kimball exemplified a prophet who portrayed an average human being. In preparation for a meeting, he proceeded to stuff papers in his refrigerator in order to get his room clean. By using such an example, we came to love prophets we did not personally know - they became "real" to us. He also described the humility of President Kimball. He would wear the same shoes, no matter how worn out they were or if they had holes in them. Before we had President Kimball as a prophet of God and after we discovered he was a humble man, who had trouble with cleaning.

Monson exemplifies an excellent sense of audience awareness because he surprised everyone with his discussion of the prophets. By doing this, we all walked out of the Marriott Center with more confidence of the leaders of a church, and a deeper love for the men who they really were. I feel that because President Monson avoided repetition of lessons we hear in General Conference, we were able to learn more about the men who truly impacted our religion on a more personal level. President Monson helped us build a foundation of understanding for the prophets that built the principles of the church.

Humanity Walks Guiltless As Earth Rapidly Melts Away

There is no fence-sitting in Lovelock’s view of the Earth’s fate. As Blake said, Lovelock will attempt to say anything (even if I may not politically be correct) to show his readers we are headed for catastrophe. According to his uncited research, we are in imminent danger if the complacency of the world continues to be naïve of the clear and upfront issue of global warming. Not only does Lovelock, consistently throw startling statistics at the reader, he is also able to find the reader’s vulnerabilities and take a stab at them. Of course, the end of the world should be a vulnerability for all, but apparently, it is not. By describing the danger we are headed for, Lovelock announces that nuclear energy is the only plausible solution at this stage in the Earth's downfall. At the same time, readers need to be skeptical of all Lovelock's dramatic imagery and facts - he leaves no room for debate.

An Earth of six billion people, continues to rotate despite the carefree image we have created. He explains the urgency and danger if we do not act fast and if we proceed to act as if all is well. To emphasis its severity, he uses the ultimate symbol of fear, and danger – fire. “Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act” (par. 6). Using this simile, Lovelock is able to put a scary face on the consequences of global warming. We view a fire as uncontrollable and scary. A fire’s effects can leave agony and despair – just the message Lovelock is trying to convey.

Lovelock is so effective with his rhetoric because he also uses the language tool of overstatements in his article. He uses an exaggeration of imminent danger to prove a point. A typical interpretation of imminent danger would refer to a plausible threat within 24 to 48 hours. It seems unreasonable that global warming could even harm us, however Lovelock presents facts demonstrating how global warming has already harmed the Earth’s population. He states that 20,000 people died in Europe from a heat wave last summer. At first his exaggeration of imminent danger seems irrational. Yet when diving into the facts and logos Lovelock has presented, it is shocking that global warming has become a reality.

I have found that rhetorical questions can also prove to be very valuable as an author. It gives time for the reader to discuss the issue in their head before reading the author’s opinion. It also, allows for the reader to answer, more often than not, in the author’s favor of the issue. For example, Lovelock devotes the first half of his persuasive article to startling statistics and familiarizing readers to the issue with a bias spin to it. After all of this, he poses the question, “So what should we do?” (par.7). Clearly, the reader is going to be sensitive and announce in their minds a proactive solution – which is exactly what Lovelock aims for. He is attempting to win over supporters.

Finally, as a student aware of global warming, Lovelock was successful in breaking down my defensive wall to sympathize and realize the seriousness of the issue. Without a doubt, he uses imagery to describe the major cities of the world we see as landmarks, business capitals and places were destruction would not be found, as uninhabitable as the water levels continue to rise. He uses the symbol of unconquerable world capitals to show that even well-developed, protected and industrialized cities such as London, Tokyo, New York and Venice, are in danger. Any sort of protection and security that these cities are associated with, was destroyed in Lovelock’s article.

Essentially, Lovelock was effective as a writer and successfully advocated his opinion, yet reader's must realize the drama of his piece. Lovelock uses excessive exaggeration in addition to his language tools. Most importantly, he leaves no room for debate as he proposes nuclear energy as the only possible solution. One must be skeptical because the author gives no room for readers to think otherwise. In addition, readers must put up their guard because the author does not include any sources - who knows if all his facts are correct?

Overall, Lovelock used the language tools of similes, overstatements, rhetorical questions and imagery in order to promote the use of nuclear energy. He establishes his rhetoric as he suggests to his audience that the population needs to be informed and concerned with the imminent danger of global warming. By realizing this possible reality of this theory, readers will be more likely to accept nuclear energy as a solution, however they must not be misguided by his faulty points - we must be skeptical!

Nuclear energy has been accepted as a solution, but it has not put into action. The end of the world is dramatically being declared by Lovelock – and apparently it is not far away. Lovelock presented such an irony: we have led this Earth to its death by man’s way of self-destruction, yet none seem to care enough to change bad habits or adapt a solution.

Logical Fallacy of the Common American Citizen

Further analyzing Steve Duin's article, I believe there is a general logical fallacy he addresses that the nation has built up - that we as a country are becoming "socialist." Obama was elected as the democratic candidate. He certainly has begun to alter the administration so that the central government has gained much power through several of his programs such as Health Care. But ideas are thrown out that because of Obama's actions, our nation is becoming socialist. As Duin says, we have developed a sense of skeptism towards the way our governemnt is run and we have turned a simple word such as community into a much scarier princple of socialism: "in the movement to turn "community" into a shameful code word for socialism, you feel the desperation of those who believe their political fortunes are best served by a forlorn and prolonged skepticism" (par. 13). Despite the fact that Obama is centralizing the federal government, it is virtually impossible for the United States to become socialist like its mother country, Great Britain. When people use this argument against Obama, they are just demonstrating their lack of knowledge.

Many people may refer to this notion (that the country is becoming communist) because they fear. The are unsure of the transition of one president to the next and they fear change from their complacent state. Citizens refer to this logical fallacy and their lack of knowledge becomes transparent.

The point is that Duin recognizes that citizens need this sense of community. Duin says we live in "an ear-plugged society in which everything we need -- including intimacy -- arrives via the iPhone" (par. 10). Overtime we have been separated by the influences and advances of technology. We need to revive a sense of unity, a sense of oneness over the individualism that has driven or economy to rock bottom. Because Obama is choosing to strengthen certain government programs, does not mean he is redefining the American ideals that this country was founded on! We must overlook the childish remarks people make when they do not fully understand the politics of Obama, especially when they talk out of fear. It is unethical and clearly a lack of persuasive rhetoric when the general public relies on manipulation to portray their view.

Society needs to be charitable about our opponent's intentions and we must establish trust. Although I may not agree with the political ideology of the author, I do understand his frustrations. I can see how polarization of the political parties is occurring in the United States. We can "agree to disagree" and establish intellectual humility but we cannot become accustomed to mistrusting citizens of the other political party. On this basis, politics will become more of a mess. The goal is the pursuit of truth and by discovering the truth, we can arrive at the best way to govern our country.

Arrogant Columnist Loses Audience Members

I believe that we all agree that one of the nation's most recognized columnists is highly qualified in all areas of rhetoric. As we have already mentioned, Steve Duin is successful in persuading his readers through use of kairos and language tools (as Blake has mentioned in two of his earlier posts). However, at times even the most widely recognized columnist can lose audience members due to his arrogance of opinion and his assumptions of their knowledge.

Duin emphasizes the importance of community especially in this era. He does an mediocre job of using supporting evidence that this is the case. Duin points out that now more than ever we are experiencing times of isolation created by technology (iPhones, texting, emailing etc.) This is undeniably the truth, however I feel that he could use more emotional emphasis (pathos) to fully enhance this point.

Another example of how Duin lacks logos is how he does not fully align his readers with his examples. He refers to Roosevelt High, I assume it's a local school in Portland. He says: "One reason I remain fixated on the efforts -- especially those of the congregation at SouthLake FourSquare -- to bring stability to Roosevelt High is that the adventures cross the racial, social and material lines that so frequently divide us" (par. 16). This is the entirety of background information he gives concerning the "communal effort Obama is promoting" (par. 18). From this, I can infer that Duin is seeing an improvement in stability within Portland's local high school. For me, I am still left with the question of specifics: how is this being done at Roosevelt High? What efforts towards "stability" are being made? In this way, Duin assumes his audience is local and already has background knowledge. Yet he is a nationally recognized columnist. Obviously people from differing areas are going to read his work.

Blake's comment is right - in many cases, Duin is brief in order to promote readers to develop their own opinion. This is clear in his use of language tools, especially with rhetorical questions such as, "A president who 'believes in community above individuals'? In the sacrificial giving that serves those who can not fathom your prosperity?" (par. 20). This begs readers to think and question. Duin is undoubtedly not a writer who hands an opinion to you, but prefers readers to formulate their own based on what they've read. Acknowledging this, I feel that with the reference to Roosevelt High there could be more background information seeing as he uses it as his main example. If readers cannot understand Duin's main example, they will hardly be able to understand the reality of his concept.

Finally, and most importantly, Duin can be a very offensive author for those who disagree with his political ideology. Within the introduction to his article, Duin refers to his opponents as a "right wing noise machine" (par. 3). Not only is this a slap in the face to any conservative reading his article, Duin completely obliterates any possibility of acknowledging "fence-sitters" of the issue. In a major way, Duin does not acknowledge the opposing side and doesn't seem to make any attempt to find common ground. Furthermore, Duin does not establish trust. As we know, the only way to debate an ethical argument is to be charitable about the opponents' intentions. In no way is Duin open-minded and accepting - he is blunt and "political correctness" is somewhat absent. Hence, Duin does not exemplify an admirable sense of audience awareness.

Overall, the lack of community he expresses has potential to be such a powerful argument that could convince many fence-sitters of his opinion. Steve Duin is very abrupt with his points and expects the audience to fully understand the issue and the examples he refers to. Duin's work could be an all-inclusive article addressing political unity, but within the first few lines of his article he makes it clear that he is in no search for common ground. He is relying too heavily on his rhetoric status or credibility (ethos) while his argument lacks presence of logos or audience awareness.

"A Man of God" - to some

I would like to continue the analysis of President Monson's priesthood talk in May of 2009 but touch on his expression of "ethos."

Lars was accurate by expressing how President Monson demonstrates his eternal knowledge and supreme intelligence. Lars also points out that all of the words given by President Monson are applicable to the times, and President Monson emphasizes how important it is to study diligently, pray fervently, and live righteously especially in these latter days. In this way, President Monson accurately expresses kairos as a method of persuasion.

Another way President Monson in persuasive is not only through kairos but also, through his credibility. As Blake said in his post about a separate one of President Monson' addresses, the prophet of course is one of the most supreme human beings on all of the Earth - that is a given. But I think there aare some other methods that President Monson uses to lure in his audience.

Within the first minute of President Monson's address, he expresses deep love for the audience. Seeing as it is impossible for President Monson to personally know each and every member of his audience (which includes every member of the church - 13.5 million people) on a human level, it shows that he has been given a divine power. He has extensive credibility in the eyes of the members because of this fact. But to any ordinary person, he is expressing love. When listening to a speaker, it is hard to turn away from someone who speaks of their "sincere love, as well as... appreciation for your faith and your devotion" (par. 1). In everyone's mind, this man gains credibility for his unconditional love, no matter who you are - he recognizes the audience is important and he values your presence. Of course, President Monson isn't using this as a "method of persuasion" but it shows how he creates his own ethos. He doesn't have an extensive background of business success - he is a humble man. Because he establishes this sense of humility, people want to listen to this genuine man.

Other ways President Monson recognizes that his audience is important, is his comparison of the priesthood (held by the majority of male members of the church) to the power of God. By doing this, President Monson creates a feeling of worthiness that each member feels. Who does not want to listen to someone tell them how much they love and care about you?

Another way President Monson emphasizes ethos, is the way he provides guidance and advice to audience (which Lars spoke about). President Monson persuades us that his words can benefit our lives. Most people with a testimony can feel the Spirit to know he speaks the truth. In a way, the Spirit (a manifested feeling many members feel) is a way we can testify of President Monson's credibility. However, for audiences of other faiths may not agree with his advice. For example, members of other faiths may disagree that"living righteously" or morally is a way of staying out of harm's way. Overall, President Monson's credibility varies in strength between strong members of the church and non-members. For members of the church, they use the Spirit (or feeling they recieve when President Monson speaks) as a way to know that President Monson is the most credible human being on the Earth.

Finally, President Monson proves his knowledge of the scriptures, which contains difficult concepts, and interprets them to present day. He is able to make scripture messages applicable to our every day lives. He establishes his "ethos" by doing this because he recognizes things that we may sometimes skip over or not realize their significance. Overall, he demonstrates his divine intelligence, that makes the audience willing to listen. Other audiences may not recognize the scriptures as an important literary work and therefore would not find President Monson as credible as he is to the members of the church.

In a secular way, it can be interpreted that President Monson tries to persuade his audience to follow his teachings. For non-members, President Monson is less credible. They may not see the same power, love and intelligence that he emphasizes in his talks. In many ways, President Monson is trying to "persuade" the members, yet members are more likely to follow him solely because of his ethos, not his "power of persuasion." When it comes to religious guidance, members are not persuaded - they follow because they feel it is right based on the confirmations of the Spirit. It is controversial because the Spirit may be identified as another "persuasive device," but members testify of it being a credible source solely based on their faith.

9/11 : A Reason for Unity and a Reason for Fear

As we pass the eighth year since 9/11, Peggy Noonan comments in the Wall Street Journal on its widespread emotional attachment to one particular age group. "The Children of 9/11 Grow Up" provides the commonly accepted opinion that 9/11 has an emotional connection that is taken very seriously by all Americans who were old enough to interpret the severity of the situation. When we all think back to the day of September 11th, there are common emotions felt by the general body of America - shock, remorse, pain and most importantly, fear. The author uses the emotional attachment to this particular historical event to convince us that there is a current undertone of fear among our communities in America that we are never completely safe.

In this way, the author utilizes emotional appeals to persuade us of this theory. She recognizes a serious event which is a very sensitive subject for many and persuades us that there is a constant fear present among the Amrican people. She uses interviews with young adults to enhance her argument. The age group Noonan focuses on the children who were old enough to understand the situation, but still children caught in their childhood. Noonan states, "Before they were carefree, after they were careful... the protected bubble of their childhood 'popped,'" (par. 5).

Noonan effectively applies the subject to a specific audience. Even her title begged curiosity - that is what drew me into open up the article. However, she also demonstrates that there is a broad appeal or an even larger audience because she connects this current day age group who experienced 9/11 to the generation of Pearl Harbor. She mentions that both audiences experienced the same set of emotions that should be acknowledged - they both have experienced "their first moment of historical consciousness" (par. 4). By tying both generations together, she suggests that these critical events in history significantly impact coming of age and maturing into adults. In other words, these historical events assist children in becoming American citizens and a part of a unifed body. "It completely destroyed our sense of invincibility... It showed the world could be a dangerous place for my generation that was never the case. My generation had no Soviet Union, no war against facism, we never had any threats" (par. 9).

It is clear that through Noonan's opinionated article, she uses the pathos or emotional appeal of 9/11 to connect to specific age groups and generations. She states that 9/11 is a way for that particular age group to achieve historical consciousness. She effectively persuades her readers that generations can be tied together through the historical tragedies they have experienced. Although there may be an undertone of fear, Noonan successfully creates a sense of unity because of her persuasion of tying generations together through their emotional experiences.

A Presidential Inauguration or a Binding Contract of Reformation?

A presidential inauguration represents a crucial moment in time, a time of transition, and for some, it is an opportunity to change from bad to good. On the day of January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated as the first African-American president. From this point on, it will be recognized as a crucial time period in which racial segregation will be politically unacceptable. It is a time in which the conservative federal government will undergo radical changes to meet the standards of a Democratic president. For many, it is a moment of victory and relief and for the rest, there is a feeling of defeat and despair. Although there is this separation and disagreement of political beliefs, an inaugural address seeks to unify all divisions and in the end, inspire the nation.



Throughout his campaigning, Barack Obama's public speaking skills were widely recognized and admired. Even Republicans began to wonder if McCain was falling short merely because of the overall reaction and inspirational spirit Obama could build out of a crowd. He was moving; he stimulated his audience and he motivated his fans and was able to convert the swayers. The peak and final bang of President Obama's public speaking was his inaugural address that instilled confidence in the nation. At that point, citizens of America were relieved with their new president.



The reason for such success for President Obama's inaugural address, was because he used the power of "kairos." He recognizes the crucial moment of time we were living in. The fact that an African- American was elected president is a crucial moment in history within itself. But Obama also recognizes the fact that we are amidst economic devastation, in need of health care and education reformation, and facing terrorism on a universal level. Without a doubt, Obama addresses the right people, at the right time and in the right place. All the citizens of America are looking to be reassured - they want to know they will be taken care of. Certainly, the American people are reassured all of this as Obama states, "Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in short span of time. But know this America: They will be met" (par. 11). The reason for his success is because he points out that we need many changes due to the trivial time. He uses kairos to his advantage. Because of the truths he states, people do not recognize that they are being persuaded into an agreement.



This is the reason for Obama's success- he lures people in and soon enough, they are not conscience of the unwritten contract they are making. He promises that by unifying our nation we will choose "purpose over conflict and discord" (par. 12). Of course this is appealing to all, but what we don't realize is that there is work to be done on each citizen's behalf - in other words, the government, despite what some may think, is not going to fix it all for us. Obama manages to slip in that Americans need character change and we need to develop more integrity in terms of spending, developing better habits and conducting honest business. Of course these are all truths and each issue must be addressed - but what the audience must realize is that each citizen needs to agree to do these things for the betterment of our nation. Obama says, "For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies" (par. 58). When he reads this statement, Obama's audience is too caught up in the inspirational spirit to truly understand its meaning. In a sense, he is placing more responsibility on the individual saying that the government cannot function without citizen participation. Obviously, this is an acccurate statement - the government cannot work for a large body of inactive citizens. However, common knowledge is that if anything, Obama's policy will be strengthening the central government to the point where an individual's political responsibility is insignificant. The purpose of this statement is persuasion. It is enforcing the unwritten contract - the contract that John Locke once spoke about centuries ago. Each citizen has responsibility and in order to function as a unified body under government, individual wants or desires must be given up. These individual wants and desires are the bad habits Obama is talking about. Citizens must give up greediness and laziness - the individual freedoms that will not promote national unity.

In many cases, the audience does not recognize this "contract." Citizens do not recognize the persuasion in Obama's argument because he effectively works in motivation for a better day that hides the responsibilities that come with the future. Obama uses motivation from the past, a history that we all share, the sacrifices our Forefathers made for us, the battles they endured and the everlasting hope and virtue they first established. These are such powerful bonds that we all share, any contract would be hard to recognize or fully understand under such emotional ties. But citizens don't understand the importance, let alone the changes they will have to make in their lives. As citizens, we have agreed to "spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government" (par. 33). These are not bad things to change, the purpose is for a better tomorrow and to help our nation reform. But the persuasion is key under these circumstances.

It is obvious that a presidential inaugural address is an example of kairos - a critical point in time. But many do not see how in this case, Obama uses the kairos moment to his advantage by presenting an agreement among the people. Throughout his term as president, we will see if his persuasion through kairos was actually effective by watching the habits of our fellow citizens. We will see if his contract of reformation persuaded the American people. We will ask ourselves looking back, "Has there been a transformation in business transactions?" Overall, Obama uses the current times as a source of inspiration to present a contract of reformation. Initially, people do not think of an inaugural address as a piece of persuasion, but underlying the inspirational words and the motivational spirit of Obama, lies a contract that each citizen must abide by in order to experience success as a nation.