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.

[MG 2.0]

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.

Welch revised his bibliographies and acknowledged earlier editions in some scholarly contexts can be seen as an implicit, if reluctant, acknowledgment of Quinn's findings regarding the availability of the information. However, he maintained his core argument that Joseph Smith likely didn't have the kind of sophisticated understanding of chiasmus that would allow him to intentionally embed it in the Book of Mormon.

It is a question of what is the likelihood of Joseph Smith absorbing and intentionally applying such complex literary techniques even if there were scholarly sources that were available.

And then there is the other point I've brought up a number of times. For what purpose did...if he did...Joseph embed complex chiasms, as is found in Alma 36, in the Book of Mormon? Who was he trying to impress...when nobody really had any idea of what was going on with that literary/poetic style of writing?

Except for the really smart guys. Was he writing for them?

Be that as it may, I don't see any firm evidence that shows Joseph would have had the ability/inclination to insert chiasmus into the Book of Mormon. The time/place/environment doesn't really lend itself to it either.

But that's my view.

Add the evidence of multiple authors in the Book of Mormon, translation window/time, and you have a lot of complexity and unlikely happenings going on for a farm boy in this area of the nation at that time.

Regards,
MG

[Dr Exiled]

It is settled, the Book of Mormon is the most complexist, bestest, deepest book ever!!!!!

Believers aren't asking you to agree with their position. That would be unreasonable. Everyone comes at things from different positions and perspectives. That's what makes the world interesting.

Regards,
MG

Missionaries are asking people to agree with their position. At least that's what I was doing when I was out there and it seems pretty clear that's what they're doing today.

It's ok to admit that missionaries and the church as a whole want people to believe their narrative.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Be that as it may, I don't see any firm evidence that shows Joseph would have had the ability/inclination to insert chiasmus into the Book of Mormon. The time/place/environment doesn't really lend itself to it either.

But that's my view.

If MG is convinced then that settles it for me.

Chiasmus show up in Joseph Smith's non Book of Mormon writings, including his letter to Emma and in the D&C. Also, chiasmus are present in James Strang's Book of the Law of the Lord, in Solomon Spaulding's writings and in The Late War between the United States and Great Britain (which shares many striking similarities with the Book of Mormon).

"Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon are just inverse parallelism, which can and do occur in various writings all the time. Real chiasmus is an easy to spot poetic form and can be clearly seen in places like the book of Psalms. The Book of Mormon "chiasmus" are of varying and non-matching size, which is a clue that these are not real chiasmus. Rather, overeager and gullible dupes (like MG) try their best to make these weak and non-existent chiastic structures fit into the text. Most, if not all Book of Mormon "chiasmus" are in the eye of the beholder.

In other news, 9 out of 10 doctors recommend chiasmus to prevent constipation.

[MG 2.0]

Be that as it may, I don't see any firm evidence that shows Joseph would have had the ability/inclination to insert chiasmus into the Book of Mormon. The time/place/environment doesn't really lend itself to it either.

But that's my view.

If MG is convinced then that settles it for me.

Chiasmus show up in Joseph Smith's non Book of Mormon writings, including his letter to Emma and in the D&C. Also, chiasmus are present in James Strang's Book of the Law of the Lord, in Solomon Spaulding's writings and in The Late War between the United States and Great Britain (which shares many striking similarities with the Book of Mormon).

"Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon are just inverse parallelism, which can and do occur in various writings all the time. Real chiasmus is an easy to spot poetic form and can be clearly seen in places like the book of Psalms. The Book of Mormon "chiasmus" are of varying and non-matching size, which is a clue that these are not real chiasmus. Rather, overeager and gullible dupes (like MG) try their best to make these weak and non-existent chiastic structures fit into the text. Most, if not all Book of Mormon "chiasmus" are in the eye of the beholder.

In other news, 9 out of 10 doctors recommend chiasmus to prevent constipation.

The chiastic structures that might be found in the two sources you are referring to, along with Strang's, don't hold a candle to Alma 36 and other examples found in the Book of Mormon.

In his blessing to his son Helaman, Alma uses chiasmus in recounting his conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This chart illustrates the deep
structure of Alma 36. Jesus Christ is the crux of the chiasm, just as he is the center of the gospel and the only means whereby salvation can be attained. The turning point in Alma’s conversion was not the appearance of the angel or the fear of eternal banishment, but calling on the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Fittingly, Alma makes this spiritual turning point the literary focal point of this entire chapter, one of the finest examples of chiastic composition anywhere in world literature.

https://archive.dev-bookofmormoncentral ... 04/132.pdf

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Be that as it may, I don't see any firm evidence that shows Joseph would have had the ability/inclination to insert chiasmus into the Book of Mormon. The time/place/environment doesn't really lend itself to it either.

But that's my view.

If MG is convinced then that settles it for me.

I know you say this in jest...but really, for sure, don't rely on the fact that I find chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as an 'evidence' that points towards ancient origins.

For those that ARE interested, I posted four links earlier in which there is a good deal of information dealing with chiasmus and the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Believers aren't asking you to agree with their position. That would be unreasonable. Everyone comes at things from different positions and perspectives. That's what makes the world interesting.

Regards,
MG

Missionaries are asking people to agree with their position. At least that's what I was doing when I was out there and it seems pretty clear that's what they're doing today.

It's ok to admit that missionaries and the church as a whole want people to believe their narrative.

Missionaries AREN'T asking people to agree with their position. They do encourage people to seek the truth and ask God for answers to questions.

Regards,
MG