Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

MG, you did not address Alma 5 and the song of “redeeming love” yet. Did you mean to ask the question as a hypothetical interest, or were you thinking an analysis might miraculously prove Hebraic origins for the content inside Book of Mormon chiastic instances? Is this a case of “be careful what you wish for?”

Would you point out the complex chiastic structure in Alma 5 and the words "redeeming love" within that structure?

We do have this in regards to Alma 5:

Alma 5:9 reads in part, “their souls did expand.” The context would call for a meaning such as “they became happy,” to parallel the phrase in the same verse, “they did sing redeeming love” to celebrate their freedom from the “bands of death” and the “chains of hell.” Nowhere in the King James Bible does soul occur in conjunction with the word expand; neither does it occur with the verbs enlarge and swell, each of which accompany soul once in the Book of Mormon (Alma 32:28 and 34 respectively). This phrase appears to be unusual. Why should a soul expand? If this phrase is unique in English to the Book of Mormon, could the phrase reflect an ancient Near Eastern vorlage rather than have its origin in English?

The Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter OED) under soul gives no evidence of the phrase “their souls did expand” occurring in English; neither are there usages of enlarge and swell with soul. This and other evidence appears to indicate that the phrase “expand the soul” does not have its origin in English. If it could be demonstrated that this phrase has an ancient Near Eastern Semitic analog that was not available to Joseph Smith, it might qualify as sufficient evidence of an ancient Near Eastern vorlage for the Book of Mormon.

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2019/02/ ... guing.html

Is this what you're referring to?

In answer to you question:

Is this a case of “be careful what you wish for?

You tell me.

I'm still looking for someone to point out Joseph's vernacular/voice showing up within the chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon. If the structures are either from antiquity or given by God during the translation process one might assume that Joseph Smith's thought patterns and/or language vernacular might be absent within these blocks of text in the Book of Mormon.

But that's just a hypothesis/conjecture on my part I must admit. I'd think someone might want to prove me wrong.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I'm still looking for someone to point out Joseph's vernacular/voice showing up within the chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon. If the structures are either from antiquity or given by God during the translation process one might assume that Joseph Smith's thought patterns and/or language vernacular might be absent within these blocks of text in the Book of Mormon.

But that's just a hypothesis/conjecture on my part I must admit. I'd think someone might want to prove me wrong. :wink

Why would you think that? Not only have you not actually presented a legitimate hypothesis or even a valid conjecture, you have literally argued the exact opposite in various threads about other Book of Mormon topics so to now introduce the flip side as an “hypothesis [slash mis-use] conjecture” that you want others to disprove is just attention-seeking nonsense.

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm still looking for someone to point out Joseph's vernacular/voice showing up within the chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon. If the structures are either from antiquity or given by God during the translation process one might assume that Joseph Smith's thought patterns and/or language vernacular might be absent within these blocks of text in the Book of Mormon.

But that's just a hypothesis/conjecture on my part I must admit. I'd think someone might want to prove me wrong. :wink

Why would you think that? Not only have you not actually presented a legitimate hypothesis or even a valid conjecture, you have literally argued the exact opposite in various threads about other Book of Mormon topics so to now introduce the flip side as an “hypothesis [slash mis-use] conjecture” that you want others to disprove is just attention-seeking nonsense.

Hi Lemmie,

Have a nice day.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

An example of what? Occurrences within chiastic structures in which Joseph's vernacular or that which would be found in early America IS found? As a matter of fact I would expect that you wouldn't find those examples. Gadianton (or Dr. Moore?) came up with a short two or three word example and called it good. Not good enough.

You're asking me to prove what I would think may be a negative.

Looking at chiasims I would expect that they are what I would call 'artifacts' from antiquity and the writings of the Hebrews. As such I would not expect to find Joseph's vernacular spread throughout these sections in the Book of Mormon. I'm asking YOU if you can find provable and consistent examples. Prove the positive.

You are making a claim that some part of the text does not fit the vernacular of Joseph's day. Since you already want to claim most of the Book of Mormon does fit Joseph's vernacular you need to provide what parts you think don't. I cannot do that for you.

But the fact remains, it is there. It needs to have an explanation other than referring to Dr. Suess.

People have given you explanations up the yin yang. Dr. Suess is just one example of chiasmus structure in an English text. You admit to many others.

Again, as I've already said, after reading what scholars have had to say about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, your reductionist soundbite doesn't cut it.

Themis, it is rather obvious...isn't it(?)...that critics really have nowhere they want to go with looking at things like chiasmus and word print studies. It doesn't fit their worldview. In order to even give credence/validity to internal evidences concerning Book of Mormon historicity they would have to also go with angels and golden plates. As Gadianton has pointed out recently, that's a non-starter.

Regards,
MG

Critics have blown holes through these arguments for a long time. What's worse is so have some LDS apologists. Interesting you ignore them so easily.

I didn’t see this earlier, Themis makes pretty much the same point I did, plus more. Presenting a nonsensical “conjecture” and asking others to prove it is just trolling for attention.

[_mentalgymnast]

Presenting a nonsensical “conjecture” and asking others to prove it is just trolling for attention.

Nope. I'm actually serious. Care to give it a go? No one else has so far. Except for Dr. Moore and Gadianton...but I think they may have been barking up the wrong tree and haven't responded back yet in regards to their original assertion.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...trolling for attention.

Lemmie, you're jumping in and trolling for attention. You haven't contributed anything of worth here. You're madly cut and pasting trying to derail from the substance of the thread.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

Presenting a nonsensical “conjecture” and asking others to prove it is just trolling for attention.

Nope. I'm actually serious. Care to give it a go? No one else has so far. Except for Dr. Moore and Gadianton...but I think they may have been barking up the wrong tree and haven't responded back yet in regards to their original assertion.

Regards,
MG

How would we do so? If we look at alma 36 we see vernacular all over the place that fits Joseph's day. Just like the rest of the Book of Mormon you suggest is translated using Joseph own words and understanding. I am missing what we are supposed to see that does not fit in Joseph's day. Can you articulate what you think you are seeing?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Imma just tuck this one in right here...

MG’s Steps to Confuse and Befuddle an Opponent through Dubiousness and Spuriousness

1) Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison between your position and theirs while offering up minimal responses that don't acknowledge points raised.

2) Insist that your opponent provide incontrovertible proof, and anything short of a recorded and signed confession won't be accepted as plausible. Recorded confessions will be assumed to be a deep fake and signed confessions are forgeries.

3) Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately (or hair fire or tin foil conspiracy, etc). Do not even read it. Once your opponent goes through the bother to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the target poster. It will make them unwilling to expend the effort again, which is a net win. The sooner you can move the discussion into quips and cliches the better it is for your side.

4) As mentioned above it's extremely important to cherry pick their arguments. Just because they make a good point doesn't mean that you have to respond to it.

5) Quote them and then misrepresent what they said.

6) Attack the source because that's easier than addressing content. I like to call this one 'ad sourcenum'.

7) Confuse your opponent with questions, always questions. The questions need not be relevant. The goal is to get your opponent off their game, and preventing your opponent from making their point. Think Endless Recursion through Irrelevant Questions. Also, do not respond to their leading questions.

8) Just blurt out something, anything, instead of letting points go unchallenged. That, in of itself is a rebuttal and works like a charm. Posting for the sake of posting is as good as posting a well-thought point.

9) Deceive your opponent by identifying yourself as a member of their group, or as a moderate, centrist, independent, or act as though you used to be part of their group but then saw the error of your ways. <- The last one is the Born Again tactic. Or just stay on the low down. Works either way, no?

10) Insert our catch phrases into your posts. Stick with it and our talking points will become truth. If they debunk your talking point, ignore it, and move on because what's important is noise, not content.

11) There's this thing called 'sliding', and you see DCP do it a lot (and they also talk about it a lot on /pol/). LDSFAQs would do this quite a bit. If you want to hide something instead of addressing it, sliding a post is a great way to bury anything that you don't want to be seen. Simply create more posts above the conversation that you want to hide. The posts that you make will push the targeted posts further down, reducing the visibility of the objectionable material.

Any combination of these tactics are in use any given moment by bad actors. Anyway. I just want the audience to see what I see and note their BS when they're doing it.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

Presenting a nonsensical “conjecture” and asking others to prove it is just trolling for attention.

Nope. I'm actually serious. Care to give it a go? No one else has so far. Except for Dr. Moore and Gadianton...but I think they may have been barking up the wrong tree and haven't responded back yet in regards to their original assertion.

Regards,
MG

I see you missed my response to you. Here it is:

I'm still looking for someone to point out Joseph's vernacular/voice showing up within the chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon. If the structures are either from antiquity or given by God during the translation process one might assume that Joseph Smith's thought patterns and/or language vernacular might be absent within these blocks of text in the Book of Mormon.

But that's just a hypothesis/conjecture on my part I must admit. I'd think someone might want to prove me wrong. :wink

Why would you think that? Not only have you not actually presented a legitimate hypothesis or even a valid conjecture, you have literally argued the exact opposite in various threads about other Book of Mormon topics so to now introduce the flip side as an “hypothesis [slash mis-use] conjecture” that you want others to disprove is just attention-seeking nonsense.

Between Themis’ last remark and my question about your conjecture being the opposite of your previous assertions, you have quite a bit to respond to.

[_mentalgymnast]

Nope. I'm actually serious. Care to give it a go? No one else has so far. Except for Dr. Moore and Gadianton...but I think they may have been barking up the wrong tree and haven't responded back yet in regards to their original assertion.

How would we do so? If we look at alma 36 we see vernacular all over the place that fits Joseph's day.

Just point out some firm examples within the context of the structured chiasmus. They're all over the place, right?

Regards,
MG