In my Book of Mormon class today we discussed something that I thought was very interesting: Christ's rhetoric while talking to the Nephites.
In detail we went back and forth between 3 Nephi 20 and 3 Nephi 21 to see how Christ used a certain style of rhetoric to help the Nephites understand the words he had spoken to them earlier in Chapter 16. He used almost word for word repetition to relate future events to events that had happened in their day. He used signs to be given, or something that had already come to pass and related it to the latter days.
I thought that it was really interesting to see how Christ masterfully interwove quoting Isaiah and Micah into these chapters and how effectively he was able to use repetition of situations and phrases to help the people understand future circumstances.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Sunday, November 8, 2015
The Church Policy Change
I'm not going to use this blog post to argue about the policy change or even state my opinion on it. I'm just going to focus of the rhetoric of the numerous arguments that I have read on Facebook within the last couple of days.
Whether supporting or arguing against, my newsfeed has been flooded with rhetoric. For the most part the biggest factor for me is the evidence that the person has used to support their argument. Those who have simply rambled on with little knowledge on the actual issue at hand other than what they gathered from the headlines, are considered very unsuccessful in my mind. Those who quote the actual policy change, past conference talks, those who are actually being affected and so forth have much stronger arguments in my mind whether or not I agree overall with what they are saying.
If someone is going to argue over a very controversial issue on Facebook, I like to see it done right, with great rhetoric, rather than unsupported ramblings.
Whether supporting or arguing against, my newsfeed has been flooded with rhetoric. For the most part the biggest factor for me is the evidence that the person has used to support their argument. Those who have simply rambled on with little knowledge on the actual issue at hand other than what they gathered from the headlines, are considered very unsuccessful in my mind. Those who quote the actual policy change, past conference talks, those who are actually being affected and so forth have much stronger arguments in my mind whether or not I agree overall with what they are saying.
If someone is going to argue over a very controversial issue on Facebook, I like to see it done right, with great rhetoric, rather than unsupported ramblings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
