Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_beastie]

No you aren't to undestand anything of the sort. I gave my objections to the C/D/V effort. My support of the Book of Mormon isn't based on one little statement about metal in mesoAmerica.

This is why I got tired of this thread. People who don't read what I post, attribute things to me that I didn't say, and then try to read my mind. What a talented bunch you all think you are.

You accuse us of attributing things to you you didn't say while attributing things to us we didn't say.

No one said that your support of the Book of Mormon is based on one little statement about metal in mesoamerica. If someone said that and I missed it, please cite it here.

I pointed out something else that you'd rather not address, which is why your mind (probably subconsciously) translated what I did say into something you could easily deny. I'm sure your background in psychology has given you familiarity with this phenomenon.

What I said was that you won't even read Who Really Wrote because of the errors you perceive in it, and yet are willing to use sources to support your belief that also contain errors - and sometimes very egregious errors, like fallacious sourcing.

by the way, if none of the information in this thread was new to you, why didn't you alert us as to some of these potential issues? As just one example among many, why didn't you warn us that the pamphlet you linked used fallacious sourcing from Sorenson?

[_mentalgymnast]

Chiasmus is one of the more powerful evidences the Book of Mormon has going for it. I've read arguments pro and con and I haven't been convinced by the skeptics that chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon is of the same nature/complexity as the rather random simple occurrences of simple chiasms that show up in some of Joseph Smith's other writings and in the D&C. Those I could chalk up to familiarity and experience with biblical phraseology and such.

Translation issues dealing with tight vs. loose translation and how transmission of ancient text and meaning would be impacted through those processes doesn't negate the fact that these chiasms are there.

The million dollar question is how did they get there.

Regards,
MG

The problem with chiasmus is that it's not a specifically Hebraic or ancient literary device. It occurs in many languages at different points in history, including in the 19th century. It's not really a powerful evidence of anything except that the Book of Mormon unsurprisingly uses common literary devices, intentional or not.

And here we have it folks. A three point...ummm I mean...three line rubuttle to the very complex issue of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

I am convinced that chiasmus should not be lightly dismissed.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

If chiasmus is one of the "more powerful" pieces of evidences the Book of Mormon has going for it, the Book of Mormon, in terms of ancient historicity, is in serious trouble. But you already knew that.

No I didn't.

It is powerful to you because you powerfully need it to be.

What? That's a bunch of crap. Sorry. But it is...

It's powerful in its own right. For what it is. For the fact that it's there in the form and complexity that it is.

Runtu is correct, the intentionality is irrelevant.

Why?

Book of Mormon apologetics is often based on wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. The loose translation theory eliminates the possibility of literary devices being used as evidence of the Book of Mormon' historicity. God telling Joseph Smith where to place words in sentences, phrases, or paragraphs, is a tight translation.

The fact is, is that complex chiasmus is intermittently inserted into Book of Mormon text. Where did it come from?

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

What? That's a bunch of crap. Sorry. But it is...

It's powerful in its own right. For what it is. For the fact that it's there in the form and complexity that it is.

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that the existence of a literary device that is used intermittently in the Bible and many other forms of literature, in ancient, nineteenth century, and modern writings is powerful evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document.

This really is the state of Book of Mormon apologetics, and I do believe you have read enough about Book of Mormon apologetics to know that. But I may be wrong. This is the best you can do. You can't point to ONE piece of evidence in Mesoamerica that links the Book of Mormon to that area. You can't point to ONE piece of evidence that clearly points to Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, either. But you can find Hebraisms in a book that was crafted by an individual who wanted the book to sound like the Bible.

The intentionality is irrelevant because Joseph Smith wanted the book to sound like the Bible. So two possibilities exist: (I'm going to use Joseph Smith as the name of the author while conceding it is possible other authors were involved) -

1 - Joseph Smith was aware of the device and its use in the Bible and intentionally used it.

2 - Joseph Smith was not formally aware of the device but still used the formula because he was trying to make the book sound Biblical

[_Runtu]

And here we have it folks. A three point...ummm I mean...three line rubuttle to the very complex issue of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

I am convinced that chiasmus should not be lightly dismissed.

Regards,
MG

Snarkiness aside (where did that come from?), chiasmus is a well-known literary device that transcends time and culture. We read about chiasmus in English literature when I was in grad school (at BYU, no less), but no one claimed that 19th-century British authors were translating ancient documents.

In all serious, you have two hurdles to jump: first of all you have to show that chiasmus exists in the Book of Mormon. I think that's been adequately shown. The second hurdle is that you have to give us a reason to believe that said chiasmus is evidence of Hebraic or Semitic influence. That, my friend, is nigh unto impossible.

I could write more, but what would be the point? You seem to think that years of studying about these things constitutes a light dismissal. Whatever.

[_Blixa]

Chiasmas is not a complex issue. Not in the Book of Mormon, not anywhere. It is a tedious rhetorical device quite easily acheived whether intentionally or not. Repetition, repeating rhetorical stuctures that mirror each other, are easy to find for a couple of reasons:

1) basic patterns of human storytelling---especially when the story is related orally at first (like the Book of Mormon) in order to remind/emphasize points to a physcially present audience.

2) as a conciously affected rhetorical trope its hella easy. Litotes, well handled, zeugma, hypotaxis, even the lowly
paronomasia, are all much more difficult to acheive (but also can be read in texts free from authorial intention, too. See #3 below)

3) it can easily found retro-actively throught texts of myriad times and places. Ya just gotta be looking for it for it to pop out at you.

I've read hundreds of thousands of literary texts. Its my job. When you look at the Book of Mormon from that perspective it looks like what it is: a peripatetically constructed 19th century fiction that recycles many of the topics of its day.

[_Runtu]

Chiasmas is not a complex issue. Not in the Book of Mormon, not anywhere. It is a tedious rhetorical device quite easily acheived whether intentionally or not. Repetition, repeating rhetorical stuctures that mirror each other, are easy to find for a couple of reasons:

1) basic patterns of human storytelling---especially when the story is related orally at first (like the Book of Mormon) in order to remind/emphasize points to a physcially present audience.

2) as a conciously affected rhetorical trope its hella easy. Litotes, well handled, zeugma, hypotaxis, even the lowly
paronomasia, are all much more difficult to acheive (but also can be read in texts free from authorial intention, too. See #3 below)

3) it can easily found retro-actively throught texts of myriad times and places. Ya just gotta be looking for it for it to pop out at you.

I've read hundreds of thousands of literary texts. Its my job. When you look at the Book of Mormon from that perspective it looks like what it is: a peripatetically constructed 19th century fiction that recycles many of the topics of its day.

Apparently, you're lightly dismissing it, too. I would have thought better of an English Literature professor. :rolleyes:

[_beastie]

a peripatetically constructed 19th century fiction that recycles many of the topics of its day.

Hands down, this is the most concise, accurate description of the Book of Mormon I've ever read. I'm even tempted to kick off Hammer as my sig line.

But it's sooooo hard.... Hammer is almost perfect......

[_Blixa]

Chiasmas is not a complex issue. Not in the Book of Mormon, not anywhere. It is a tedious rhetorical device quite easily acheived whether intentionally or not. Repetition, repeating rhetorical stuctures that mirror each other, are easy to find for a couple of reasons:

1) basic patterns of human storytelling---especially when the story is related orally at first (like the Book of Mormon) in order to remind/emphasize points to a physcially present audience.

2) as a conciously affected rhetorical trope its hella easy. Litotes, well handled, zeugma, hypotaxis, even the lowly
paronomasia, are all much more difficult to acheive (but also can be read in texts free from authorial intention, too. See #3 below)

3) it can easily found retro-actively throught texts of myriad times and places. Ya just gotta be looking for it for it to pop out at you.

I've read hundreds of thousands of literary texts. Its my job. When you look at the Book of Mormon from that perspective it looks like what it is: a peripatetically constructed 19th century fiction that recycles many of the topics of its day.

Apparently, you're lightly dismissing it, too. I would have thought better of an English Literature professor. :rolleyes:

Hey don't mind me...I told someone yesterday that except for three lines, Paradise Lost was a complete waste of paper.

[_Runtu]

Hey don't mind me...I told someone yesterday that except for three lines, Paradise Lost was a complete waste of paper.

I'm not a huge fan of Paradise Lost, but it was better than the Faerie Queene. And it's still better than a certain book we're discussing.