Electra - An Emotional Rollercoaster

As with all plays, Electra really uses pathos to convey a message to the audience. From the beginning, we know (even if you didn't read the synopsis of the play beforehand) that Clytemnestra is the antagonist, as well as her husband, Aegisthus, and that Electra is the protagonist. I think that the delivery of these actors portrays their role in the play from the beginning. Electra's passion about her father's death seems so real. She is using gestures, wandering around the stage, and even yells at times to convey her passion and agony to the audience. Then, the big reveal is made that it is her very own mother who is responsible for the death of her father. The audience can't help but feel bad for her! 

I also think it is the case when Clytemnestra makes her first appearance. The way she talks, even seems cold, especially towards Electra, with whom we have already made an emotional connection. That automatically makes her seem like the bad guy, in our eyes.  There is one time, however, when I did succumb to an emotional appeal of Clytemnestra. That was when Clytemnestra was orating her soliloquy, and reveals her motive behind wanting her husband dead. He sacrificed his own daughter, Iphigenia. I thought Clytemnestra successfully swayed the audience, at least for a mere moment, to feel sorrow for her as well. However, that quickly changes when Electra comes back to reveal the circumstances in which it was necessary to sacrifice her in order for them to go on to win the battle of Troy. 

All in all, the entire play is filled with emotional appeals, from when Orestes is pronounced dead to Clytemnestra and Electra, to when Orestes reveals himself as alive and well, and willing to help avenge his father's death. I also thought the actors successfully used pathos to sway the audience when Aegisthus finds his wife's corpse, it made me feel bad for him, but also feel happy for Electra and Orestes for getting the revenge they so desperately wanted.

I think pathos is the most important appeal in theater. It helps the audience understand who is important, as well as who is bad and good. It also helps the audience to make a connection with the characters, that keeps them interested in the play in its entirety. 

Honor Unchallenged in Death

The only thing worse than dying is dying in vain.  So there are the great speeches made on the battlefield, and then there are those made to prevent people from not going back to the battlefield, like Pericles' Funeral Speech.

In this perhaps quite long piece of epideictic, or ceremonial, oratory, Pericles seems to utilize pathos as he speaks to the people about the death of those they have loved.  As Eli noted in his post, the kairos involved in this selection of a time and place and setting is prime: these people are feeling irrational.  They're also really vulnerable because of this, which can go either way: vulnerable to feel like Athens has unjustly taken away the lives of those they loved, or vulnerable to feel like Athens is a city above all others and deserving of every ounce of courage they can muster from their spouse, parent, child, and dog.  Yet after the emotions subside, they will also have to remember this speech in a manner that will continue to elevate and maintain their high opinion of Athens.

Pericles tactfully identifies the decorum of such a situation, where his audience and setting and situation are at a current state of irrationality, but will regress to a rational viewpoint as time separates the audience from the recent deaths of their loved ones.  With prudence he brings up examples where Athens is simultaneously the greatest and the most unique: politically, socially, academically, etc.  You name it, they've got it, and they had it first and best.  By bringing up the grandness of their home, Pericles is simultaneously fortifying the logic behind their loved ones dying for such a place, as well as further inspiring them through emotion and rationale to continue loving and fighting for Athens.  He praises the dead, along with those who are continuously willing to die for their home.  The men fueling the wars of Athens will not see a shortage anytime soon.

Riding to your death can be an emotional experience; better make it appeal to your logic, too.
"Forth! Down fear of darkness!...Spears shall be shaken, shields shall be splintered!...Ride now... Ride! Ride for ruin and the world's ending! Death!"

Thucydides, Whitey Tightey's

Pericles starts out his speech with strong ethos by immediately letting the audience know about his intentions. He informs them that he will be describing and speaking about what he has experienced in war. I see it kind of as a, "been there, done that" approach. He makes sure that he keeps himself in check by sneaking this credibility in the back door. Later on in the speech, he continues to include himself as part of the great civilization he goes on to describe. By using the word "we" and "our" instead of "you", "your", or just "The Athenians", he is simultaneously lifting himself and the audience.

(We're all on the same team here, guys)

The body of the speech has intense pathos. Over and over, Pericles reminds the audience of how great Athens is and was. He starts out by bringing up the ancestors, "founding fathers of Athens" if you will, and their critical role in establishing this great civilization of theirs. He then talks about how they have set the standard and have been great at pretty much everything. Using evidences in politics, war, and the people as a whole, the decorum at this point is geared specifically to evoke strong emotion. "Athens, alone of the states we know, comes to her testing time in a greatness that surpasses what was imagined of her." This is a good transition point to call for action. At this point he starts to slowly use more and more action words.

A lot of people from the class have agreed that this speech is both epideictic and deliberative. Chloe S did a great job at explaining how, through words, Pericles is able to persuade the audience that words aren't enough. He didn't even want to give a speech, but these great men deserve our action. His delivery was executed in a way that both delivered sympathy, appealing to emotion, and hope for change, appealing to reason for action in the future. At the end of the speech, especially, he called for action. These great men who died deserve the action of the people to live up to their reputation.

Just because something has been done, or is being done currently, does not mean it has to happen in the future. It wasn't until this last part that I realized the impact of the first section in which he disagrees with the way the grieving has gone. This is another logical appeal and example of change.

 

The Gates of "Hell"

Do Mormons believe in a place called "hell"? A place of fire and brimstone where the devil and his demons reside? What did Christ mean when he said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" (Matthew 16:18)? I think understanding what Christ meant by that can help us understand the rhetorical strategies Johnathan Edwards used in his sermon "Hellfire and Damnation to the Sinful."

From: Die Blog, Die

Writing Plan for a Writing Clan (a.k.a English Teaching Majors)

Audience Profile

With my essay, English Teaching majors will be able to
understand why rhetoric and communication is vital in
the classroom!

            A typical English Teaching major will take many literature, English language, grammar, and teaching courses to prepare them to teach in a secondary education setting (high school).  Almost all curriculum will address communication in some way.  Communication will be found through literature and the importance of literature on communication, how to communicate correctly with grammar, and how to teach effectively to adolescents.  The teaching classes are by far the most suited toward rhetoric because teachers must develop ethos, pathos, and logos in order to help their students learn.  Furthermore, classes like History of the English language will provide a context or overview for the profession.  Following these courses, there is a professional element, which includes student teaching or an internship as well as classes on special teaching topics like teaching in a multicultural setting or teaching those with disabilities.  The student teaching portion of the major is the best time to get a hands-on experience on how to communicate well to perform effectively as a high school English teacher.  In preparation for getting a job, BYU’s university career services can help English teaching majors apply for jobs, write an effective resume, and interview well.

Context

            The most meaningful context I can provide for someone who might be considering an English Teaching Major is to expound upon the noble virtue of teaching.  Although teachers are neither the most paid nor most revered professionals in the world, there is something highly gratifying and noble about teaching.  Students can be inspired to go on to be successful simply through a great teacher.  Sticking to the focus that teaching is a noble and wonderful profession will be the best way to persuade readers to focus on my essay.  To persuade readers to pay attention to issues of communication in the English teaching major, I will remind them of bad teachers that they have had.  Most bad teachers lack basic knowledge of how to communicate and persuade effectively.  They do not understand the fundamental issue between learning and engaging the student.  They do not know how to add personal touches to curriculum.  They often do not know how to dress to fit the part of a personable professional.  Everyone wants to be successful, so I will convince them that the best way to be a successful English teacher will be to communicate effectively.

Rhetoric

            I will need to present in my paper the general ideas of ethos, pathos, and logos in my paper and how each applies to effective communication in English teaching.  General methods of high, middle, and low style should be addressed so that the teachers can know what style to address their students at a given time.  They should know both when to listen to the students and when to be the speaker.  Specifically, persuasive strategies in regard to effective e-communication (email, blog, social media and other effective technologies) should also be addressed.  How to teach personally with an impersonal curriculum is another specific topic that is needed for effective persuasion and communication.  I can address the 3 different persuasive appeals and the 3 different levels of styles without necessarily naming them in rhetorical jargon.  Rather I can use synonyms like “logical argument” for logos and “an entertaining style” for middle style.

History

            To give useful perspective, I can focus on how language and grammar teaching has influenced history.  I can focus on the Sophists’ speech writing instructions and handbooks and Quintillian’s progymnasmata.  This historical focus will allow readers to see the scope of how important and ancient the art of teaching language is. 

Developmental Plan

            I will divide my paper into three distinct sections—persuasion and communication in the classroom, persuasion and communication on an individual basis, and persuasion and communication with the staff and faculty.  In order to be a successful professional and teacher, English teaching majors must be proficient in communication to these three different groups.  For each of these groups, I will explain the different styles and ways of communicating that will be most effective per group (for example, clarity and repetition in a lecture might be extremely helpful in the classroom, but it might be better to have a dialogue with little repetition for individual communication).  I will attempt to add a little historical context if it applies.  I will need to add some new information that is not taken from my blog posts in regard especially to faculty interaction.  I will need to know how faculty communicates effectively.

            The section on in the classroom and to the individual will be the most important sections.  The people you will influence the most as a teacher will be the students, not the faculty.  Telling the stories about Ms. Evans and Mr. Rice will be the most effective in explaining how to communicate well to students and to faculty.

Even the Weak are Strong. Even the Ugly are Pretty.

Before I get deep into this post, I would like to preface my post by addressing the fact that I am looking to take a different twist on these two excerpts. I am going to make a brief analysis of a connection between Pericles’ funeral oration and book one of Aristotle.

In chapter 9, Aristotle states that “for purposes of praise and blame, the thing to do is to take attributes that approximate the ones that are present as being the same things….. And each person is always to be taken as having what is best from among the attributes that go together.” He gives us various examples like the arrogant person being symbolized as a great, extraordinary person and the wasteful person as a generous person. With that being said, we know that the form of oratory that is typically utilized to give praise or blame is the epideictic oratory. Though Hailee Richards made great points in debating that Pericles’ oratory was a deliberative one, I would argue that this validates the fact that it was an epideictic oration through and through.

Pericles knows exactly what he is doing. We have background knowledge that he is the leading statesman in Athens and has great influence among the people. I think that as he speaks, it is clear that he is trying to magnify the good things of Athens to make them seem overall better than what they really are. He obviously gives lots of praise to the soldiers and every time he mentions them he takes more of a “sacred” tone, now that they have passed away. However, I find it interesting that he uses Aristotle's take as a way to not only motivate the people but build their self esteem. I would go as far as to argue that building their self esteem is going to take a hit at the pathos appeal because everyone feels good when they are being praised. 

The Cradle of Humanism

The Inspiration for the European Renaissance

While reading the funeral oration as delivered by Peracles I couldn't also help but think of the leaders of the American revolution, I imagined them reading similar works and being influenced by them. For, as addressed sufficiently by Macey, James, and Ryan, many ideas mentioned exactly reflect the "American Dream" and the guiding thoughts that created modern democracy. But then my thoughts turned to the European renaissance when society began to adopt greater humanistic ideas; these ideas emerged because people began reading works similar to this oration. The ancient Greeks clearly placed value on the individual working to better him/herself so that they could actively contribute to society. Freedom was emphasized, they took great pride in the fact that they were splitting from the norm. 

Audience and Pathos

I'm always fascinated by how an audience influences one giving a speech and how it changes the rhetorical devices and forms used. I completely agree with what James posted about the kairos of Peracles' speech, and what he briefly mentioned about how Peracles personified Athens. I feel that Peracles knew his audience, and accordingly formed his speech to inspire within them ideals to benefit the community. His speech is replete with humanist ideas that he presents with great pathos in order to inspire the community. 

Moral Absolution 

I felt some form of moral force govern the thoughts Pericles used. He presented the ideals of Athens as morally the most correct of ideals. That being said, I don't feel I agree completely with Ryan and Macey's analysis that he was following the Sophist order of things. I feel that it was a bit more Socratic because it seems to me that he genuinely felt the things he was addressing were a question of morality. I don't think that he was pragmatic, he certainly didn't claim that he didn't have absolute knowledge; on the contrary he spoke with absolution guided by beliefs that seemed to be deeply planted within him. Perhaps in the sense that he used public speaking as a way to get his point across he was in line with the Sophists, but the philosophies behind his ideas felt far more Socratic. 

Power

What really is power? As Latter-day Saints, we believe that God is all powerful, that He is omnipotent and omniscient; however, He reserves one thing for us to have that He does not now possess nor control, our free agency. So, no matter how much He hurts when we make stupid decisions and I'm sure it's incredibly frustrating for Him to see us make so many mistakes He will not force us to do anything, even the most powerful being in the universe cannot control us. However, as Professor Burton has mentioned several times in class, we believe in a God that uses words and communicates to us with language, how He helps us make right decisions is through communication in scripture and Prophets, He also gives us the influence of the spirit, which we usually describe as a feeling. It isn't a normal feeling, like love or fear or even joy, sometimes those feelings come as a result of feeling the spirit, but feeling the spirit is different, yet for most who feel it they almost always describe it as a feeling.

The Greeks understood similar principles in their own way, as I watched Hecuba I was impressed, disturbed, and struck by the power that language had. Hecuba herself, as some have mentioned in previous posts, said that none of the other arts were as important as the art of persuasion, because it allows one to influence and control the actions of others. Hecuba's usage of persuasion came through language but almost always she utilized ethos by appealing to pathos. She used her grief and then her and her families position in an appeal to ethos in order to influence the feelings of those around her. It shows just how powerful our emotions have on others. When someone smiles at me, I smile back not because it's polite, but because I feel like doing it! When I heard Hecuba's moaning and screaming I felt the chills and was disturbed. Although I knew that the revenge that ended up occurring was totally wrong it didn't seem like such a bad thing after being influenced by Hecuba's grief, it was after all, justice. You see how powerful that is? An appeal to our emotions through dramatic language can change so much about us!

True Mimesis

I find that I have developed a distaste for much of the new, popular shows and movies. Often I find that the media gains a lot of hype for it's special effects and famous actors, then when it premiers it fails to impress me (and others) with underdeveloped writing, plot holes and bad acting. And when it comes to acting, one of my biggest pet peeves is something that I call the sexy cry

A sexy cry is a scene when a female character is put into a grieving situation and cries only mildly as to maintain the beauty or gentleness of the role they are portraying. Nearly all female roles in today's media carry out this unrealistic form of acting. It is perhaps more visually appealing, but the audience gains no empathy with the person facing the trauma. The overall effect is hindered.

But in Hecuba, Euripides knows how to appeal to logic through emotion. Hecuba herself brims with sadness, none of which is honestly unrealistic. You can feel her heart-wrenching pain. And when she cries, it isn't some quiet pathetic sob. No, this is true sadness - the kind that makes you a twinge of guilt and embarrassment for willingly observing someone literally break down. She doesn't hide it because it's not meant to be attractive! You feel her pain. That is more than you ever see in current media. That is Mimesis.

It doesn't even end there. Every character gives off such outspoken yet honest feelings that you can't help but agree with their pleads and causes, even if you disagree. Hecuba may not be able to convince Odysseus to let her daughter live, but she gives off not only reason but emotional appeal as well, until your heart strains with woe as Odysseus denies her any peace from her misery, or in her implore to Agamemnon demanding revenge, where you know that she has been driven to madness and yet you have sympathy for her. That is power and that brings out more rhetoric than just a pretty face ever will.

Don't Mess with Momma

After seeing probably my first play since grade school, I was quite impressed with the production.  Of note, both Hecuba and Polymestor made excellent displays of mimesis and the art of persuasion.  Obviously, one was more vindicated than the other, no doubt due to Hecuba's exposing of Polymestor as a greedy liar (and possibly because he spat too much).  Both appealed to Agamemnon over the murder of Polydorus, with Hecuba raging for justice and Polymestor defending with claims of protecting against any future instances of war. 

In the end, Polymestor cannot stand fast against the buffetings of his sons' murderer.  It might have been easier if he had still been able to see so that he could have just killed Hecuba, but that was not the case.  Unfortunately for Polymestor, his appeal to patria was not enough to deter Agamemnon from the blind greed so readily apparent in the childless father.  Hecuba had lost her husband to war, Polydorus to the gold frenzied Polymestor, and one of her daughters to sacrificial retribution.  She was an old woman stricken with age and all manner of misdeed.  As she so expertly convinced to Agamemnon, there was no lower point for her to fall.  Seeing as she had nothing to lose and Polymestor had much to gain, the honesty of their feelings was easily distinguishable. 

It was this honesty combined with hard logic that allowed Hecuba to eventually win over Agamemnon.  In the eyes of Agamemnon, the distraught mother's actions had been fair and justified, whereas the slithering Polymestor clearly had acted only in his own self-interest.  If the play had been an act of public speaking rather than just amongst a select few, Polymestor could very well have won the debate.  His reasoning was sound, so his case would most likely have been supported amongst the masses.  This was not as effective as hoped for, however, as the debate parties were small enough that Hecuba could appeal to the individual rather than to the faceless crowd.  Having the ability to pinpoint and focus on Agamemnon's vital regions, she overpowered her opposition's standpoint with a potent hybrid of logos and pathos, successfully avenging her lost family.  

In the Arms of the Angels

After I saw Hecuba, I started thinking about Sarah McLachlan dog videos (for some strange reason.)  Sarah McLachlan uses rhetoric; Euripides, mimesis (or acting).  Both McLachlan and Euripides attempt to convince the audience of something through emotion.  What is most interesting is the comparison between the use of pathos in mimesis and rhetoric.
            Both mimesis’s and rhetoric’s application of pathos can occasionally be ineffective.  In Hecuba, the audience is moved to feel sadness, loss, and emptiness through Hecuba’s wailing cries and her actions.  Likewise, rhetoric pulls on the heartstrings through jarring stories and experiences.  Occasionally, the logos’ attempts to pull on emotions are overdone.  I sometimes became a tad disconcerted with Hecuba’s cries and was tempted to emit an awkward laugh rather than sympathize with Hecuba’s condition.  This probably was due to the fact that I do not live in ancient Greece and the hyperbole of sadness was a little too much more for me.  The kairos was a little off.  Likewise, in some rhetorical situations, the pathos can become almost too much, like in Sarah McLachlan’s speech about dog cruelty.  I always just turn off the TV.  Sometimes, you just don’t want to empathize.  

Hecuba's sadness creates an usually
effective emotional appeal for the
audience.

However, done correctly and with the right implementation of kairos, both mimesis and rhetoric can effectively persuade your emotions.  Though Hecuba commits a terrible murder of two innocent children, we are emotionally persuaded by her own sorrows that revenge not a bad thing.  We support Hecuba, not condemn her.  Likewise, in McLachlan’s emotional speech about the animals that need us, she convinces us that “just 60 cents a day” can help animals in need even though we know deep down that animal abuse cannot be stopped easily.  Clearly, though mimesis and rhetoric are both logos, they both employ pathos to create effect.

I killed Mufasa...

I can always look back and remember times when I’ve heard “So I have this friend…”  We all know that this “friend” is really an easy way of not admitting something embarrassing of oneself.  It’s how we can talk about the undiscussed.  We can try to understand the topics that are not quite open for much understanding.  It is one way that we deal with the irrational.  And I may or may not have used this one unsuccessfully in my own life.

There are many irrational elements in the play Bakkhai.  But Euripides knew that the opportune moment for discussing these irrational passions was in the rational, comfortable and respected stage of the theatre.  He knew that he would have a large audience and could bring up these issues to the minds of many.   He knew that his audience respected the gods and would side with the chorus but at the same time he plays on their emotions.  Through the use of pathos the audience begins to pity Agaue.  Without realizing, she had killed her only son.  This stirs up a mixture of emotions.  Should the audience be happy because Dionysus showed his power as a god or should they be upset because a family had to pay the price through murder?  Euripides uses opposites to display that what is considered to be rational may not be all that rational in the end.

Speaking of irrational, the god Dionysus may not be the most rational of the greek gods. What kind of a god would trick women into becoming senseless killers?  In our culture we consider women to be daughters of the Most High God and to be respected.  Euripides turns things around completely by having an irrational, unforgiving, and ill-tempered god put women into a haze and use them as tools without agency to show his power.  Also family members killing other family members doesn't seem too godlike, yet it always reminds me of The Lion King.

Listen to This Song! It might inspire something irrational within you...

I had a thought running through my mind as I read through the Encomium; what Gorgias says in his essay often passes through my own head. When I make mistakes, the first thoughts that run through my mind are what influences that I may perceive at the moment did to make me do something, like Satan, for example, I often think, "Man, I really don't appreciate that temptation!" We, as humans are so prone to blame others. After a few minutes of thinking about a mistake I may have made I get over the frustration and realize the truth, no matter what those outside of me try to get me to do, I ultimately decide what I do. Gorgias sounds almost childish, kind of like we do when we point our fingers, as he defends Helen. His essay seems to me to drip with pathos as he produces images in our minds of art, moving speech, and war. His whole argument seems to be based on pathos, whether it was the emotions of Helen or the emotions of her captors it was emotion that controlled them according to Gorgias, thus it wasn't their fault.

Music moves me. I have played the cello for many years, I don't know why I've stuck with it, really it isn't rational. I won't ever be able to provide for my family since I'm not choosing to be a music major, it just takes up time to practice and play in the symphony orchestra here. Time is precious, I need it to study and work, why would I use some of it to sit down and play music when I won't be pursuing it professionally? Because it feels good. When I was 15 I played in the Utah Youth Symphony and we performed a song called "Danzon no. 2" by --. In the last 1/4 of the song there is a crescendo in the piece where everyone in the symphony is playing as loud as they can with all of the emotion they can muster. The moment we arrived at that part in the piece I felt the most incredible sensation; I felt as if I was lifted up, I felt a weightlessness that made me feel like I and the rest of the group was floating in the air. It was almost spiritual, there I was with a group of people working together to create something beautiful, useless, really, but beautiful. The only moments that have produced feelings that equaled that moment have been deeply personal and spiritual. It is for that reason that I continue with my irrational decision to play the cello today, even though I have no time, and it will take me nowhere. We all do irrational things because of our emotions, but that doesn't make them excusable if they're bad as Gorgias proposes, but I like to think that not all irrational decisions are bad decisions. If you have a few minutes, go ahead and listen!

In case you are interested, the part where I felt like I was 

floating starts at about 7:45 until the end. (Notice how much the musicians are moving.)

Telling the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

One of the first things that I noticed as being similar between Elder Bednar’s talk and the conversation between Socrates and Gorgias was the fact that both parties addressed their audiences. In Elder Bednar’s talk, this helped to establish pathos with the people listening. He used words such as “us” and “we” and that helped to create unity among those in attendance and help him more personally relate, even when being in such a large crowd. People are generally more likely to listen to someone’s thoughts if they feel a personal connection, and Elder Bednar established that connection very well. Socrates and Gorgias addressed the audience in a much different way. Instead of the audience being an integral part of the conversation (like Elder Bednar created, with the use of “us” and “we”), the audience was just that: an audience. They were bystanders, listening. At one point, Socrates’s and Gorgias’s conversation is halted as they recognize the audience’s presence (see pg. 42, line 458D). This acknowledgment reconnects the people to the conversation. It is not quite as inclusive as Elder Bednar’s talk, but it still creates the much-needed unity that creates pathos and involvement, which encourages people to listen more intently.

The fact that both were addressing crowds is also important to note, as it creates a need for epideictic rhetoric. In both cases, they were speaking to motivate and persuade. In Elder Bednar’s talk, he ended with praise of the character of the audience, the Church, and the Lord. Socrates continued in questioning (which seems a lot like blaming) Gorgias and rhetoric in general.

I also found a lot of similarities in Elder Bednar and Socrates in their search for truth and knowledge. Several times during both of their speeches, they turn towards the importance of truth and knowledge when making an appeal. Both focused on the necessity of having the information and truth before sharing opinions and false “knowledge.” 

Different Styles, Same End

Through Instagram, I can challenge others
to post their favorite scriptures and spread
the gospel.  These are all the people I
challenged!

Both Socrates and Elder Bednar present to their respective audiences the dangers of communication in deliberative addresses.  The styles of Elder Bednar and Socrates are extremely different but actually lead to the same end: their audience cannot refute them.

I loved the #BecauseofHim movement and
 tweeted and retweeted about it often.

Socrates spoke directly to a very few people: Gorgias, Callicles, and Polus.  Because of this, there is a “back-and-forth” to the messages that Socrates gives.  People can refute him and do so constantly.   In contrast Elder Bednar’s audience is the entire world.  His message is that we can spread the gospel through social media in huge ways, so he obviously thinks that his own message, recorded on video for everyone to see later and for thousands of people to actually witness, will have a world-wide audience.  Because of this audience, there is no “give-and-take.”  He simply lays out his argument so no one can refute him to his face, but still might disagree with him.

I also love the hashtag #LDSconf.  It
helps create discussion with my
non-member friends.

Because the audiences are different, the persuasive appeals of ethos and pathos between Socrates and Elder Bednar differ.  Socrates increases his own ethos and pathos by shaming others.  He proves Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles wrong and contradictory in order to make himself look like the one for whom to turn for wisdom and uses outside references sparingly.  He appeals to emotion by making others feel shame for what they said.  The effect of this shaming creates a situation where no one can refute Socrates.  Elder Bednar, in contrast, showed clips of worthy prophets and apostles to increase his own ethos by association and used the motivating word of “exhort” to motivate people to action, which creates a spirit of good-will toward Bednar where one truly believes his argument enough to not refute him.  Therefore, both Bednar and Socrates create the same inability in their audience for refutation but through different means. 

Unlike my social media, Socrates could
only speak to a few people at a time.
That's why his approach to his audience is
different and much less pleasing than Bednar's.