(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

VIEWS OF THE CHRISTIAN SECTS vs. THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS IN RELATION TO ADAM.

(A Discourse.)

NOTES.

1. A Suggestion to the Speaker: The discourse is to be argumentative. The form in which the theme is stated necessarily makes it so.

It is expected that the Sectarian views will be fairly presented and considered, after which will come the presentation of the views that arise from what God has revealed to his Church concerning the great Patriarch of our race, and the superiority of those views over the conceptions of the Christian Sects be made to appear.

Let the suggestions respecting speech structure in Lesson VI, and also the same instruction in Year Book I, be remembered and reviewed in the course of preparation.

2. Argumentative Speaking: "In expository and argumentative composition the writer is compelled to think, and to think connectedly. Structure is all-important in these forms of composition. A successful narrative or description may be given without a strict plan or organization, for much depends upon vivid words and happy phrasing, well-turned sentences, and apt details. In exposition and argument, however, a glib use of language, rounded sentences, and good illustration will not save the writer from failure if his thought is not exact and carefully developed." (Composition and Rhetoric, Herrick and Damon.)

Governing Principles in Argumentative Discourse: "The argumentative Discourse is a composition in which the writer lays down a proposition, and endeavors to persuade others that it is true. The statements or reasons used for this purpose are called Arguments. * * * In the conduct of * * * argumentative discourses, six formal divisions were adopted by the ancients: (1) the Exordium or Introduction, (2) the Division, (3) the Statement, (4) the Reasoning, (5) the Appeal to the Feelings, and (6) the Peroration. It is by no means necessary, however, that these six parts should enter into every discourse. To employ them all would inevitably, in some cases, produce an appearance of stiffness and pedantry. Yet, as any of them may be used, we proceed to define and treat briefly of each. The object of the Exordium, or Introduction, is to render the reader or hearer well-disposed, attentive, and open to persuasion. To accomplish the first of these ends, the writer must make a modest opening, and convey to his readers the impression that he is candidly maintaining the position of the truth of which he is himself assured. To awaken attention, he should hint at the importance, novelty, or dignity of the subject. Finally, to make his readers open to conviction, he should endeavor to remove any prejudices they may have formed against the side of the question he intends to espouse. The introduction of a discourse is its most difficult part. If it is important in other compositions to make a good impression at the outset, it is doubly so when we are endeavoring to persuade. The following suggestions will be found generally applicable:

1. An introduction must be easy and natural. It must appear, as Cicero says, "to have sprung up of its own accord from the matter under consideration." To insure there qualities, it is recommended that the introduction should not be composed until the other parts of the discourse are written [prepared], or at least until its general scope and bearing are digested. * * *

2. In the second place, modesty is essential in an introduction; it must not promise too much, and thus raise expectations in the listener which may be disappointed.

3. An introduction is not the place for vehemence and passion. The minds of readers must be gradually prepared before the writer can venture on strong and animated outbursts. * * *

4. Introductions, moreover, should not anticipate any material part of the subject. If topics or arguments afterwards to be enlarged upon are hinted at or partially discussed in the introduction, they lose, when subsequently brought forward, the grace of novelty, and thereby a 'great portion of their effect.

5. Lastly, the introduction should be accommodated, both in length and character, to the discourse that is to follow: in length, as nothing can be more absurd than to erect an immense vestibule before a diminutive building; and in character, as it is no less absurd to overcharge with superb ornaments the portico of a plain dwelling-house, or to make the entrance to a monument as gay as that to an arbor. The "Division" is that part of a discourse in which the writer [or speaker] makes known to his hearers the method to be pursued, and the heads he intends to take, in treating his subject. There are many cases in which the Division is unnecessary; some, in which its introduction would even be improper: as, for instance, when only a single argument is to be used. * * * The third division of a discourse is the Statement, in which the facts connected with the subject are laid open. This generally forms an important part of legal pleadings. The statement should be put forth in a clear and forcible style. The writer [speaker] must state his facts in such a way as to keep strictly within the bounds of truth, and yet to present them under the colors that are most favorable to his cause; to place in the most striking light every circumstance that is to his advantage, and explain away, as far as possible, such as make against him. The fourth division is the Reasoning; and on this everything depends. It is here that the arguments are found which are to induce conviction, and to prepare for which is the object of the parts already discussed. The following suggestions should be regarded:

1. "The speaker should select such arguments only as he feels to be solid and convincing. He must not expect to impose on the world by mere arts of language; but, placing himself in the situation of a hearer, should think how he would be affected by the reasoning which he proposes to use for the persuasion of others."

2. "When the arguments employed are strong and satisfactory, the more they are distinguished and treated apart from each other, the better; but, when they are weak or doubtful, it is expedient rather to throw them together, than to present each in a clear and separate light."

3. "When we have a number of arguments of different degrees of strength, it is best to begin and close with the stronger, placing the weaker in the midde, where they will naturally attract least attention."

4 "Arguments should not be multiplied too much, or extended too far. Besides burdening the memory, and lessening the effect of individual points, such diffuseness renders a cause suspected."

5. "The fifth division is the Appeal to the Feelings. This should be short and to the point. All appearance of art should be strictly avoided. To move his hearers, the speaker must be moved himself. The last division of a discourse is the peroration; in which the speaker sums up all that has been said, and endeavors to leave a forcible impression on the hearer's mind." (Course of Composition and Rhetoric, Quackenbos, pp. 385-89.)

The "Appeal" and the "Peroration," I suggest, should be combined and called "the conclusion," and if in that conclusion there is to be an "appeal" it should, in argumentative discourses, be made to the reason rather than to the feelings, since argument is addressed to the intellect rather than to the emotions.

One other suggestion I offer in the argumentative discourse—let the statement of the theory you intend to overthrow be presented in absolute fairness; so fair that those who are advocates of it could have no possible grounds of complaint against you if they were present and listening to your discourse. Assume that they are present, and so proceed as if they were to answer you. Remember, that not only in argumentative discourse, but also in expository discourse, and in all things else, truth only will endure. Let truth, then, its unfolding, its exposition, its establishment be the object of your endeavor.

Clearness: In Lesson VI. I called attention to the importance of clearness in thought expression, or speech. I now return to the subject. The quality of clearness in the expression of thought "consists of such a use and arrangement of words or clauses as at once distinctly indicate the meaning of the writer" [or speaker] (Quackenbos). "A writer [or speaker] should choose that word or phrase which will convey his meaning with clearness. It is not enough to use language that may be understood; he should use language that must be understood." "Any writer who has read even a little will know what is meant by the word 'intelligible.' It is not sufficient that there be a meaning that may be hammered out of the sentence, but that the language should be so clear that the meaning should be rendered without an effort of the hearer; and not only some proposition of meaning, but the very sense, no more and no less, which the speaker has intended to put into his words." (Principles of Rhetoric, Hill, p. 82.)

Perhaps one of the most forceful writers of English wras Lord Macaulay; remembered chiefly by his History of England, though his essays and speeches in Parliament are well nigh of equal literary value. The one quality of his literary style which stands out more prominently than any other is the quality of clearness: "What he saw at all he saw distinctly; what he believed he believed with his whole strength; he wrote on subjects with which he had long been familiar; and he made lucidity his primary object in composition. For him, in short, there was no difficulty in securing clearness, except that which is inherent in the nature of language. This difficulty he overcame with unusual success, as all his critics admit." (Hill's Rhetoric, p. 83.)

One of the means by which Macaulay secured that clearness which distinguishes all his writings is noted by a later historian. "I learned from Macaulay," says Mr. Freeman, 'never to be afraid of using the same word or name over and over again, if by that means anything could be added to clearness or force. Macaulay never goes on, like some writers, talking about 'the former' and 'the latter;' 'he,' 'she,' 'it,' 'they' through clause after clause, while his reader has to look back to see which of several persons it is that is so darkly referred to. From the point of view of clearness, it is always better to repeat a noun than to substitute for it a pronoun which fails to suggest that noun unmistakeably and at once. No fault is, however, more common than the use of an obscure or equivocal pronoun.

Examples: "I must go and help Alice with the heifer; she is not very quiet yet, and I see her going out with her pail."

Corrected: "I must go and help Alice with the heifer; the heifer is not very quiet yet, and I see Alice going out with her pail."

Example: "Steele's father, who is said to have been a lawyer, died before he had reached his sixth year."

Corrected: "Steele's father, who is said to have been a lawyer, died before his son had reached his sixth year."

Example: "There was also a number of cousins, who were about the same age, and were always laughing, though it was never quite clear what it was about."

Corrected: * * * * "though it was never quite clear what their laughing was about."

Example: "Rasselas was the fourth son of the mighty emperor in whose dominions the Fathers of Waters begins his course; whose bounty pours down the streams of plenty, and scatters over half the world the harvests of Egypt."

Corrected: * * * "the rivers bounty pours down, etc." (Hill's Rhetoric, p. 84-5.)

Let the student, then, remember this the first essential to thought-expression in speech or writing is clearness. It is not enough that one may be understood, one must be understood—less than this is dire failure. To secure the quality of clearness in thought-expression sacrifice anything, everything, seeming elegance, high sounding phrases, harmonious sounding sentences, brave tautology even, but make yourself understood.