The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Morley]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

[Moksha]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.
Regards,
MG

Just be kind. That is most important.

[MG 2.0]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

I think that it is possible for good outcomes to result from imperfect or even dubious processes. In the field of medicine, for example, medical advances as a result of what might appear to be ethically imperfect/doubtful experiments.

Many moral philosophers argue that sometimes the ends can justify the means, or that process and content can be evaluated separately.

You are making a sweeping claim about all situations, including mine, but there are many counterexamples (e.g., whistleblowing, civil disobedience, or even "the ends justify the means" cases in wartime).

And as far as the "process being dirty" I think that is a matter of personal interpretation in the eye of the beholder.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

You're right. I posted the prompt on one post and not the other. If I don't correct that and get that prompt on every post I'm going to live to regret it at the hands of the unmerciful board nanny, Marcus.

I find it interesting that you still don’t post the accurate prompts that you use for each of the A.I. submissions that you make. This failing has been pointed out by multiple people, multiple times. Yet still you don’t provide it. Is that because you have to copy and paste it separately to the main body of text, and that’s a bit too much effort for you? Is it because you’re having cognitive issues due to age or illness? Is it because you hate being corrected, especially by women? Or some other reason?

It happens so often, despite the repeated corrections, it can only be that you’re incapable of remembering to do it, or else you are deliberately choosing not to do it. Which is it?

That's some great missionary work, MG.

[MG 2.0]

The chiastic structures that might be found in the two sources you are referring to, along with Strang's, don't hold a candle to Alma 36 and other examples found in the Book of Mormon.

Dialogue has a very interesting article on why the "chiasmus" in Alma is not really a chiasmus.

Conclusion
The existence of extended chiasmus in the Book of Mormon seems far from proved by Alma 36. While the inverted parallelism developed by
Welch is impressive on first reading, on closer analysis it is Welch's creativity that is most notable. By following flexible rules, he has fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements. His efforts to defend it with a "full text" chiasm and fifteen criteria only highlight all the problems as well as his own creativity.

As for Edwards's and Edwards's analysis, they acknowledge that their "quantitative judgments" are based "only on the order of words and
ideas" that they themselves select. They explicitly "disregard the overall integrity and literary merit" of the chiasm, which, as shown above, has little "chiastic strength" under Welch's own criteria.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_105.pdf

Now, let's take a look at a real chiasmus. This one is found in The Late War (a book that shares many similarities with the Book of Mormon):



http://wordtree.org/thelatewar/

Wunderli’s critique largely ignores statistical analyses demonstrating the low probability of Alma 36’s chiastic structure arising by chance. A study by Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards calculated less than a 1 in 100,000 chance that the chapter’s parallelism occurred inadvertently. Their work applied Welch’s criteria for chiastic strength and concluded intentional design, a finding Wunderli disputes without engaging the mathematical rigor of their methodology.

Wunderli applies John W. Welch’s 15 criteria for evaluating chiasmus but imposes stricter symmetry requirements than typical ancient Hebrew texts. For example:

He criticizes asymmetrical pairings (e.g., elements a and a'), though asymmetry is common in biblical chiasms.

He dismisses Welch’s “main girders” framework (17 paired elements) for excluding ~80% of the text, yet this selective focus mirrors how classical chiasms highlight key themes.

Wunderli’s critique focuses solely on Alma 36, ignoring shorter, stronger chiasms elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (e.g., Mosiah 3:18–19, Alma 41:13–15)

Newer methodologies in Hebrew rhetoric, such as “levels analysis,” validate Alma 36’s structure by showing how its entire text contributes to the chiasm’s thematic development. Wunderli’s critique predates these advances, relying on outdated assumptions about chiastic rigidity.

While Wunderli raises valid questions about analytical subjectivity, his critique underestimates statistical evidence, misapplies chiastic standards, and neglects contextual and methodological developments. These weaknesses limit its persuasiveness for scholars accepting Alma 36 as a deliberate ancient composition.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/article ... ed-chiasm/

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... g-alma-36/

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... d-alma-36/

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Wang Chung notes: "The Book of Mormon 'chiasmus' are of varying and non-matching size, which is a clue that these are not real chiasmus."

And that is the trouble with Alma 36 in the context of this discussion. If, for example, a diagram of faith-promoting chiasms were to leave out an element of major importance from its source text - such as a vision of God - because it does not fit the chiastic pattern claimed, would that not be a problem?

Please see my color coding of Alma 36 in Mormon Parallels, pp. 737-740, available as a free PDF download of my Gilbert Hunt entry, here:

https://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

Modern studies of Hebrew rhetoric show that in long, complex chiasms, not every narrative or doctrinal element must be paired or included at the same rhetorical level. Ancient chiasms often organize content into hierarchical, subordinate units, and not all important details are necessarily mirrored in the structure’s surface-level pairs. The absence of a direct pairing for a specific element does not automatically invalidate the presence of a deliberate chiastic form.

All elements do not need to fill in neatly into a chiastic pattern for the structure to be authentic. In reality, even in biblical chiasms, there is often variation in the size, length, and content of paired units. Some sections may be longer, shorter, or contain unique material, and reverse polarity (where paired elements contrast rather than repeat) is a well-documented feature. Scholarly analysis of Alma 36 recognizes these features and does not require mechanical symmetry for legitimacy.

Some critics of Alma 36’s chiasm sometimes point out that some diagrams focus only on select verses or omit certain content. However, defenders have shown that using multi-level rhetorical analysis, the entire chapter—including all major themes—can be integrated into the structure without omitting key elements. The critique that important content is “left out” often arises from a surface-level or overly rigid expectation of chiastic form.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/give-ear-my-words/r ... ng-alma-36

Recent studies demonstrate that every word in Alma 36 can be integrated meaningfully into its multilevel chiastic structure, including all central events and themes. The structure is not created by omitting major elements, but rather by recognizing that not every detail needs to be paired at the same rhetorical level, as is typical in ancient chiasmus.

The most important turning point—Alma’s appeal to Jesus Christ and the atonement—is placed at the very center of the chiasm, not omitted or minimized. The narrative of his conversion, including his visionary experience, is present within the structure.

Genuine ancient chiasms, especially in longer texts, often feature subordinate units of varying size and do not require every element to be mirrored exactly. This means that some details may not have a direct counterpart, but this does not invalidate the structure or require omission of major content.

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/me ... -alma-36-0

https://interpreterfoundation.org/cfm-b ... ing-point/

https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2 ... -the-text/

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... lma_36.pdf

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I find it interesting that you still don’t post the accurate prompts that you use for each of the A.I. submissions that you make. This failing has been pointed out by multiple people, multiple times. Yet still you don’t provide it. Is that because you have to copy and paste it separately to the main body of text, and that’s a bit too much effort for you? Is it because you’re having cognitive issues due to age or illness? Is it because you hate being corrected, especially by women? Or some other reason?

It happens so often, despite the repeated corrections, it can only be that you’re incapable of remembering to do it, or else you are deliberately choosing not to do it. Which is it?

That's some great missionary work, MG.

Thanks Wang! As I've said, you are obviously a good man with a good heart. Your word should be taken seriously.

Except when it shouldn't.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Many moral philosophers argue that sometimes the ends can justify the means, or that process and content can be evaluated separately.

Yeah, that great moral philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli.

Tell me about how your ends (defending your religion) justifies your means (dishonesty in posting).

As long as your content (defense of your religion) is satisfactory, your process (dishonesty in how you got the A.I. to give that response) should be shrugged off. That’s what you’re saying.

[Marcus]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

Well said. His process is definitely dirty, and he's done it consistently for years and years. He considers it acceptable to play dirty here, with people he considers different from himself (for one reason only), even though he says he's here to promote a religion that has "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" as a TR question, If I recall correctly.

[MG 2.0]

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

Well said. His process is definitely dirty, and he's done it consistently for years and years. He considers it acceptable to play dirty here, with people he considers different from himself (for one reason only), even though he says he's here to promote a religion that has "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" as a TR question, If I recall correctly.

I take offense at your accusation. I do not play dirty. If anyone does, it's you. You don't like the LDS Church and the religious doctrines it espouses. As a result you spend your time here lashing out against anything Mormon. Including members of the church that as you say, "promote" the religion. You can't have any of that and will dedicate whatever means necessary to attack and defame the church and its defenders.

It's rather clear. And you've been doing it for quite a while now and nobody has called you on it. Until now.

Regards,
MG