mentalgymnast wrote:
Hi marg. Chiasmus is one of a number of internal evidences of the Book of Mormon. Yes, this writing structure can be found in other writings. It's found in the D&C and Book of Abraham also. A more in depth study has been done on chiasmus by some BYU folks. It can be found here:
byustudies.BYU.edu/chiasmus/pdf/Edwards.pdf
Chiasmus is not profound. It simply is repetition of words or phrases repeated in reverse order. It lengthens the text, probably adds a different flavor or style compared to everyday speech or writing, perhaps adds rhythm, but there is nothing profound about it.
It lengthens the number of words used to convey ideas which could be expressed in much fewer. So it is ridiculous to assume any writer (ancient or not) would choose chiasmus when they are attempted to write in shorthand, such as the alleged Book of Mormon writers who were using alleged reorm egyption in order to save on space, time and work.
It is no coincidence the Book of Mormon’s English is in KJV 1600's english. In the 1830’s that was the English perceived to be associated with God, with ancient language. English is an evolved language. The KJV biblical English existed in 1600 but English was much differentt a hundred or more years previous and 200 years later in Smith’s day. So to write in that style gave the Book of Mormon and ancient sound. The repetition, the use of old English of 1600's, the repetitive reverse order of phrases found in the O.T. ..would all be something someone well versed in KJV Bible could copy. Spalding and Ridgon were both well versed in the Bible, and well read.
So apparently the Mormon God is stuck in a time warp of the 1600’s. And when inspiring translation to humans, prefers it to any other time period in the evolution of English. And those ancients weren't too bright. They devise a shorthand, because writing in longhand on metal plates is difficult but then they repeat so many words and phrases unnecessarily even using chiasmus.
Only people who are grasping at straws, who are so intellectually dishonest that they will use the most absurd reasoning imaginable would argue with the apologetics you have MG.
One of the things the study concludes is that: The results... indicate that the strongest chiastic structure in the Doctrine and Covenants[and]the Book of Abraham...could easily have emerged from random rearrangements of their literary elements. Our results do not support the claim that chiasms appeared by design—be it Joseph Smith’s, God’s, or Satan’s—in the
Doctrine and Covenants or in the Book of Abraham. Neither do our results rule out this claim, ...Our results are consistent with the idea that chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham are simply patterns of words that happen to fall into chiastic order by chance, patterns that are recognized only after the fact through the diligence of the analyst. Our results do not rule out the possibility that Joseph Smith knew about the chiastic style when he translated the Book of Mormon but do rule out the use of chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham as possible evidence of that knowledge...we conclude that the likelihood is high that chiastic structure appeared by design in the Pentateuch
and in the Book of Mormon. Our estimates do not support such a conclusion for the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Abraham...
I addressed this. The person or persons who wrote the Book of Mormon were attempting to copy the KJV Bible which contains chiasmus, simply repetition of phrases in reverse order. It is quite understandable why it would be found in the Book of Mormon. J. Smith may have been ignorant and unaware but both Spalding and Rigdon were far from ignorant of the Bible and were both well read.
MG: Ben McGuire, a Mormon apologist, says:
There are two ways to look at chiasmus. One is to view it as a structural phenomena. The other is to view it as a rhetorical device. Chiasmus viewed purely as a structure is meaningless. It can be found just about anywhere. Identifying it within a text doesn't help us understand the text, etc.
Chiasmus as a rhetorical device is something else. It is intentional. It plays a role in the text (even if that role is purely aesthetical). This kind of chiasmus is significant.
The objective is to demonstrate that a chiasmus is intentional and not coincidental. Even accomplishing that, however, does very little for claims of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Even though the name "Chiasmus" is of relatively recent origins, Chiasmus has been identified as a rhetorical device in English literature for several centuries (I can find references to it in 16th century literature). So, its use for a 19th century author can't be given particular significance.
It's value in Book of Mormon studies is less about historicity and more about the normal interpretative issues which come to the forefront when discussing chiasmus in any text. It is the value of the rhetorical device in altering interpretations of the text (hopefully towards the intent of the author) which makes it particularly useful.
Most critics are more likely to deny the existence of intentional chiasmus within the text (claiming that the chiastic structures are accidental). The other side of the response is to point out the fact that chiasmus is not exclusively an ancient rhetorical device, and thus not an indicator for historicity even if it does occur. Personally, I agree with the second argument, although I believe that there are a few instances in the Book of Mormon where chiasmus can be demonstrated as being intentional.
MG, please read your own quote. Ben Mcquire said “(I can find references to it in 16th century literature). So, its use for a 19th century author can't be given particular significance.” You are stuck in a very small box, of thinking only J. Smith was the possible writer.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofiversion/index.php/t7278.html
MG: The experts seem to agree that Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is not there out of chance. Vogel agrees with this assessment also. I haven't read any research on the Strangite Bible, but my hunch is it wouldn't pass the sniff test for intentionality. Ben McGuire's assessment is, "...that these aren't examples of chiasmus."
It may be there on purpose. There is nothing profound about it. I’ve addressed this previously.
DCP in regards to the BYU Studies pdf I've referred to said,
"They also examine other chiasms in the Book of Mormon, and find them likely to be deliberate, as well. However, by the way, they are unconvinced that purported chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham represent more than chance occurrences -- which means that, while deliberately constructed chiasmus probably appears in the Book of Mormon, it does not seem to appear in other scriptural texts produced by Joseph Smith, thus suggesting that it is not an artifact of his particular style.
I guess you are comfortable in that box of your MG.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofiversion/index.php/t7278.html
So then we're left with a situation where we ask ourselves, how did complex examples of chiasmus get in the Book of Mormon? You then get into the arguments revolving around who know what, and who contributed this or that towards the writing of the Book of Mormon. You end up somewhat at a stalemate.
There is no stalemate. There is nothing profound about finding deliberate chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. All it is is a reversing of sentences or phrases or words. Ben Mcquire said it was referenced by 16th century writers. Why on earth would anyone using shorthand, choose to repeat phrases or words unnecessarily? What is the purpose that 1600's english was the chosen language for the Book of Mormon?
But it is there. When you combine chiasmus alongside the other evidences on the other Jeff Lindsay site, the arsenal becomes somewhat more powerful. Granted, the physical evidences are not going to be the deciding factor either way in making a decision as to whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God or not. But they are interesting in the fact that they are there. I choose to think that Joseph Smith and those that he worked with were not able to come up with all the intricate inclusions to the Book of Mormon on their own.
Well that’s because you are intellectually dishonest and can not or will not attempt to think outside your small little box.
But, to each his/her own on this.
Sure stay in your box.
It's the Book of Mormon that, if true, provides evidence of God's existence. You can hold it in your hands and read it. My experience/belief is that the Book of Mormon is not simply a 19th century creation by a creative individual or group of individuals.
So your God chooses to communicate in 1600’s English?
I know there are many more arguments against the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, but I not going to get into it, because it’s too stupid to even argue about.
And that's where we'll have to go our different ways. I see the Book of Mormon as evidence...and you don't. Where does one go from there?
Well I guess once one learns that the individual one is discussing with is too arrogant, intellectually dishonest, insincere, is not interested in getting to probable truths, is not interested in stepping outside their belief box…then it is best to discontinue attempts to reason with them.