Complex?

[I Have Questions]

John W. “Jack” Welch - Yet another Mormon scholar/apologist caught being dishonest.

[I Have Questions]

There isn't any evidence of this or that Welch tried to "bury" this knowledge.

Marcus has now provided the information that shows there is.

Welch has stated that chiasmus was known to Biblical scholars before he 'discovered' in the Book of Mormon while out on his mission. Scholars have argued that it was not widely recognized or discussed in early 19th-century America, especially outside of specialized scholarly circles. There is no evidence Joseph Smith actually knew about it, and that it is “extremely unlikely” Smith was aware of or consciously imitated the form.

Marcus has now provided the evidence that rebuts your assertions.

I’ll quote from the source that Marcus provided earlier…

As I told John W. Welch in a 1995 letter, I have always admired and praised his discovery of the ancient poetic technique of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. However, I believe that he has done a disservice to all Mormon believers by his decades of misrepresent­ing America’s pre-1830 knowledge of this biblical parallelism. As stated in my text discus­sion, Hugh Nibley’s misstatements in 1975 occurred because of his lack of access to information that was not yet published or not easily available to him. That was not the case with John W. Welch, whose publications for the LDS audience since 1969, in my opinion, have manifested an escalating, intentional concealment of pre-1830 American publications about chiasmus.

So that’s the apologetic “chiasmus, how could Joseph possibly have known…” down the toilet. And another LDS apologist's reputation and credibility ruined by their own dishonesty.

[Moksha]

So, there were even written roadmaps on how to copy and create the chiamus-style for Joseph? In Mormon Apologetics, that must prove it is all true.

[Ego]

Imagine how much more productive the scene would be if instead of being apologists holding to dogma, they were scholars of religion able to suspend their preconceptions and hold to truth. I hadn’t heard about these sources on Biblical parallelism in Mr Smith’s day. It’s a wonderful revelation! It’s things like this that keep me going back to the book; it’s at the very least complex and fascinating.