Rasmussen on Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

[Lem]

It turns out that the D&C also has a small working vocabulary. A lesser statistician might take this as a reason to doubt their theory about the relationship between type-token ratios and ancient chiasmus. But not Kyler. Kyler thinks this is evidence that the D&C was originally written in an ancient language and then translated by the Book of Mormon ghost committee into English, which is further evidence that these books are all authentic.

This raises a serious question:

Is Kyler punking us?

My thought exactly.

Also, in previous entries, If I recall correctly, he concluded there was strong evidence in favor of multiple authors/voices within the Book of Mormon, and also that there was enough Early Modern English to conclude the Book of Mormon was NOT written by a 19th century author.

If he truly believes those two results, then

1) why is he testing the total or average type-token ratio of the Book of Mormon, instead of the separate type-token ratios by author/voice?

Also, when he notes the D&C ratio is similar to this average of of B of M author ratios, instead of sticking with his earlier result (different authors) OR considering the obvious (same author), he comes up with the wild, completely insupportable idea, noted above in my quote of Spears. I’m sure that inane suggestion caused more than just Billy and myself to ask if we were being punked.

And

2) why is he comparing the book’s average (see objection 1) type/token ratio to other 19th century authors, instead of to Early Modern English authors?

Not that I think any part of his statistical work is valid, but if it were, both of those errors significantly muddy any results he is getting. Another reason to ask ourselves if he is just punking us.

Who peer reviewed this?

Nobody who will ever be willing to admit it.

[Bought Yahoo]

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... idence-13/

" Many faithful scholars have long seen chiasmus and other assorted ancient literary structures as formidable evidence on the side of the Book of Mormon, and this analysis does nothing to change that perception."

Really?

Brant Gardner disagrees with the Welch chiasmus argument.

[Dr Moore]

As I understand it, the Mopologist's claim is that "Joseph couldn't have known about chiasmus."

The entire case rests on absence of evidence (Welch, 2003). As in, there isn't affirmative evidence that Joseph must have known, seen, read or heard about:

Jebb, 1820: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sa ... ntroverted
--or--
Boys, 1824: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ta ... ntroverted

Jebb introduced the term "introverted parallelism" which is synonymous with chiasmus.
Boys expanded on introverted parallelism with many more examples from the Bible.

As a backup plan, Welch pleads that even if he did know, Joseph wouldn't have done chiasmus in the Book of Mormon's particular way. That's because, as a blanket assertion, Jebb and Boys show the weaker points live in the center of introverted parallels, whereas the Book of Mormon tends to put the most important points in the center.

But fundamentally, the argument is absence of evidence because Welch couldn't find the dates when several old libraries acquired their copies of Jebb and/or Boys.

Google book searches on "introverted parallelism" and "introverted parallels" turns up dozens of additional sources published between 1820-1828 that (a) review Jebb and/or Boys (with enthusiasm), and (b) pay specific attention to the discovered technique of introverted parallelism with multiple examples drawn from the Bible. I get the impression that Jebb and Boys generated significant buzz in Christian circles between 1820-1828. One is hard pressed to claim that buzz didn't make its way to New York during the years prior to 1829.

Interestingly, the Late War was published in 1816, before the publication dates of Jebb or Boys. It was written in "biblical style" and contains some impressive chiastic structures. So what does that mean? It would seem the word was already out on this literary style, well before Jebb's formal analysis of its use in Biblical passages.

[Dr Exiled]

As I understand it, the Mopologist's claim is that "Joseph couldn't have known about chiasmus."

The entire case rests on absence of evidence (Welch, 2003). As in, there isn't affirmative evidence that Joseph must have known, seen, read or heard about:

Jebb, 1820: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sa ... ntroverted
--or--
Boys, 1824: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ta ... ntroverted

Jebb introduced the term "introverted parallelism" which is synonymous with chiasmus.
Boys expanded on introverted parallelism with many more examples from the Bible.

As a backup plan, Welch pleads that even if he did know, Joseph wouldn't have done chiasmus in the Book of Mormon's particular way. That's because, as a blanket assertion, Jebb and Boys show the weaker points live in the center of introverted parallels, whereas the Book of Mormon tends to put the most important points in the center.

But fundamentally, the argument is absence of evidence because Welch couldn't find the dates when several old libraries acquired their copies of Jebb and/or Boys.

Google book searches on "introverted parallelism" and "introverted parallels" turns up dozens of additional sources published between 1820-1828 that (a) review Jebb and/or Boys (with enthusiasm), and (b) pay specific attention to the discovered technique of introverted parallelism with multiple examples drawn from the Bible. I get the impression that Jebb and Boys generated significant buzz in Christian circles between 1820-1828. One is hard pressed to claim that buzz didn't make its way to New York during the years prior to 1829.

Interestingly, the Late War was published in 1816, before the publication dates of Jebb or Boys. It was written in "biblical style" and contains some impressive chiastic structures. So what does that mean? It would seem the word was already out on this literary style, well before Jebb's formal analysis of its use in Biblical passages.

Great work Dr. Moore!

[Dr Exiled]

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... idence-13/

" Many faithful scholars have long seen chiasmus and other assorted ancient literary structures as formidable evidence on the side of the Book of Mormon, and this analysis does nothing to change that perception."

Really?

Brant Gardner disagrees with the Welch chiasmus argument.

Where do you come down on the historicity argument Bought, if you don't mind telling us?

[huckelberry]

One might think reading some articles that with Chiasmus we have a complicated or subtle poetic tradition requiring extended study and practice to be able to perform. I find it difficult to see chiasmus that way. Instead I see a simple rhetorical device that Joseph could have invented all on his own one Sunday afternoon. He may well have been helped by noticing a suggestion from hearing preachers, or seeing it in the Bible or perhaps another book. I cannot think of a reason to think he had to be up on the latest Biblical analysis. He did not have to have heard of the term chiasmus. He did not have to have been told this is a ancient poetic form . He could have liked the effect and emphasis it creates. He could have found it useful for organization, memory and momentum.

As evidence of ancient origin for the Book of Mormon I find it neutral.

///
Adding, Dr Moore's excellent observations point to other avenues of assistance which could have reached Joseph helping him to master the creation of chiasmus.

[Bought Yahoo]

Brant Gardner disagrees with the Welch chiasmus argument.

Where do you come down on the historicity argument Bought, if you don't mind telling us?

My views tend to align with Brant Gardner. The Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, but it was most likely translated from the Gold Plates. There are too many witnesses to the Gold Plates and a conspiracy of that size would have broken down, like Strang's.

"Translation" is a nefarious term under Mormon jargon. The fellows who claim Joseph Smith translated Egyptian keep making that argument with me and there may be something to it.

I give almost no credence to the theory that Joseph Smith dicated the Book of Mormon with his face in a hat. I think that 95% of the Book of Mormon was dicated without anything.

[Dr Exiled]

Where do you come down on the historicity argument Bought, if you don't mind telling us?

My views tend to align with Brant Gardner. The Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, but it was most likely translated from the Gold Plates. There are too many witnesses to the Gold Plates and a conspiracy of that size would have broken down, like Strang's.

"Translation" is a nefarious term under Mormon jargon. The fellows who claim Joseph Smith translated Egyptian keep making that argument with me and there may be something to it.

I give almost no credence to the theory that Joseph Smith dicated the Book of Mormon with his face in a hat. I think that 95% of the Book of Mormon was dicated without anything.

Why the secrecy surrounding the plates and why was it necessary to take them back up? This seems highly questionable despite the few people that supposedly saw the plates. Putting myself in God's shoes, I would think having independent verification from the world's skeptics would go along way to showing the veracity of the work. Yet, He supposedly chose to deliberately complicate things by removing the plates, creating skepticism where faith supposedly was desired.

So, if the thing was dictated without anything and the plates weren't in the room, why have plates to begin with? Why not just have a straight revelation like the Book of Moses was? The prop seems to be the idea of a magician that was used to using props, like Joseph Smith was with his seer stone, jupiter talisman, and sacred parchment, etc.

[Bought Yahoo]

The Old Testament model was to use a lot of props. (Ark, etc.)

The New Testament model was to rely on less props (the Temple is abolished), but blessings with laying on of hands and oil, physicial resurrection, etc.

The Neoplatonic model (or "New Age") is to have no props.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Rasmussen “doing science” and the SeN crowd acting excited over the results: