Complex?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

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.

Dialogue has a very interesting article on why the "chiasmus" in Alma is not really a chiasmus.

Conclusion
The existence of extended chiasmus in the Book of Mormon seems far from proved by Alma 36. While the inverted parallelism developed by
Welch is impressive on first reading, on closer analysis it is Welch's creativity that is most notable. By following flexible rules, he has fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements. His efforts to defend it with a "full text" chiasm and fifteen criteria only highlight all the problems as well as his own creativity.

As for Edwards's and Edwards's analysis, they acknowledge that their "quantitative judgments" are based "only on the order of words and
ideas" that they themselves select. They explicitly "disregard the overall integrity and literary merit" of the chiasm, which, as shown above, has little "chiastic strength" under Welch's own criteria.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_105.pdf


Now, let's take a look at a real chiasmus. This one is found in The Late War (a book that shares many similarities with the Book of Mormon):



http://wordtree.org/thelatewar/

[Rick Grunder]

Wang Chung notes: "The Book of Mormon 'chiasmus' are of varying and non-matching size, which is a clue that these are not real chiasmus."

And that is the trouble with Alma 36 in the context of this discussion. If, for example, a diagram of faith-promoting chiasms were to leave out an element of major importance from its source text - such as a vision of God - because it does not fit the chiastic pattern claimed, would that not be a problem?

Please see my color coding of Alma 36 in Mormon Parallels, pp. 737-740, available as a free PDF download of my Gilbert Hunt entry, here:

https://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

[MG 2.0]

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.

Dialogue has a very interesting article on why the "chiasmus" in Alma is not really a chiasmus.

Conclusion
The existence of extended chiasmus in the Book of Mormon seems far from proved by Alma 36. While the inverted parallelism developed by
Welch is impressive on first reading, on closer analysis it is Welch's creativity that is most notable. By following flexible rules, he has fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements. His efforts to defend it with a "full text" chiasm and fifteen criteria only highlight all the problems as well as his own creativity.

As for Edwards's and Edwards's analysis, they acknowledge that their "quantitative judgments" are based "only on the order of words and
ideas" that they themselves select. They explicitly "disregard the overall integrity and literary merit" of the chiasm, which, as shown above, has little "chiastic strength" under Welch's own criteria.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_105.pdf


Now, let's take a look at a real chiasmus. This one is found in The Late War (a book that shares many similarities with the Book of Mormon):



http://wordtree.org/thelatewar/

Wunderli’s critique largely ignores statistical analyses demonstrating the low probability of Alma 36’s chiastic structure arising by chance. A study by Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards calculated less than a 1 in 100,000 chance that the chapter’s parallelism occurred inadvertently. Their work applied Welch’s criteria for chiastic strength and concluded intentional design, a finding Wunderli disputes without engaging the mathematical rigor of their methodology.

Wunderli applies John W. Welch’s 15 criteria for evaluating chiasmus but imposes stricter symmetry requirements than typical ancient Hebrew texts. For example:

He criticizes asymmetrical pairings (e.g., elements a and a'), though asymmetry is common in biblical chiasms.

He dismisses Welch’s “main girders” framework (17 paired elements) for excluding ~80% of the text, yet this selective focus mirrors how classical chiasms highlight key themes.

Wunderli’s critique focuses solely on Alma 36, ignoring shorter, stronger chiasms elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (e.g., Mosiah 3:18–19, Alma 41:13–15)

Newer methodologies in Hebrew rhetoric, such as “levels analysis,” validate Alma 36’s structure by showing how its entire text contributes to the chiasm’s thematic development. Wunderli’s critique predates these advances, relying on outdated assumptions about chiastic rigidity.

While Wunderli raises valid questions about analytical subjectivity, his critique underestimates statistical evidence, misapplies chiastic standards, and neglects contextual and methodological developments. These weaknesses limit its persuasiveness for scholars accepting Alma 36 as a deliberate ancient composition.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/article ... ed-chiasm/

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... g-alma-36/

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... d-alma-36/

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

In addition to the many chiasmus found in The Late War and the writings of Solomon Spaulding and Joseph Smith’s non Book of Mormon writings, let’s take a look at some chiasmus in James Strang’s Book of the Law of the Lord:

what they cannot explain is how another early Mormon, James J. Strang, could produce works in 1845 and 1851 with the same chiastic style, unless Strang’s translations have the same sacred origins as the Book of Mormon. Strang said that his translation of the Book of the Law of the Lord was made from the brass plates that the ancient Book of Mormon author named Nephi obtained from Jerusalem (as in 2 Chronicles 17:9), and the book had a testimony of witnesses.

Here is beginner’s example of chiasmus from the Book of the Law of the Lord, chapter 39, section 1, which shows good rhythm. Notice that line A parallels line A', and line B parallels line B':

A YE SHALL not CLOTHE YOURSELVES

B AFTER THE MANNER of the follies of other men;

B' but AFTER THE MANNER that is seemly and convenient,

A' SHALL YE CLOTHE YOURSELVES.

Here is a more complex example from the FIRST CHAPTER of the 1851 Book of the Law of the Lord, with God skillfully placed in the center of the structure:

A Thou shalt not TAKE the NAME of the Lord thy God in VAIN:

B thou shalt not USURP dominion

C as a RULER; for the NAME of the Lord thy God

D is great and glorious ABOVE ALL OTHER NAMES:

E he is ABOVE ALL,

F and is the ONLY TRUE God;

F' the ONLY JUST and upright King

E' OVER ALL:

D' he ALONE hath the RIGHT

C' to RULE; and in his NAME, only he to whom he granteth it:

B' whosoever is not chosen of him, the same is a USURPER, and unholy:

A' the Lord will not hold him guiltless, for he TAKETH his NAME in VAIN.

Here is another example of chiasmus from the FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS of a different earlier record translated by James J. Strang in 1845, usually called the “Voree Plates.” The two paragraphs reverse each other in theme even more than in vocabulary:

A My people ARE NO MORE.

B THE MIGHTY ARE FALLEN, and the young slain in battle.

C Their BONES bleached on the plain by the noonday SHADOW.

D The houses are leveled to the dust, and IN THE MOAT are the walls. They shall be inhabited.

D' I have IN THE BURIAL served them,

C' and their BONES in the Death-SHADE, towards the sun’s rising, are covered.

B' They sleep with THE MIGHTY dead, and they rest with their fathers. They have FALLEN in transgression

A' AND ARE NOT, but the elect and faithful there shall dwell.

https://churchofjesuschristoflatterdays ... iasmus.htm

[MG 2.0]

Wang Chung notes: "The Book of Mormon 'chiasmus' are of varying and non-matching size, which is a clue that these are not real chiasmus."

And that is the trouble with Alma 36 in the context of this discussion. If, for example, a diagram of faith-promoting chiasms were to leave out an element of major importance from its source text - such as a vision of God - because it does not fit the chiastic pattern claimed, would that not be a problem?

Please see my color coding of Alma 36 in Mormon Parallels, pp. 737-740, available as a free PDF download of my Gilbert Hunt entry, here:

https://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

Modern studies of Hebrew rhetoric show that in long, complex chiasms, not every narrative or doctrinal element must be paired or included at the same rhetorical level. Ancient chiasms often organize content into hierarchical, subordinate units, and not all important details are necessarily mirrored in the structure’s surface-level pairs. The absence of a direct pairing for a specific element does not automatically invalidate the presence of a deliberate chiastic form.

All elements do not need to fill in neatly into a chiastic pattern for the structure to be authentic. In reality, even in biblical chiasms, there is often variation in the size, length, and content of paired units. Some sections may be longer, shorter, or contain unique material, and reverse polarity (where paired elements contrast rather than repeat) is a well-documented feature. Scholarly analysis of Alma 36 recognizes these features and does not require mechanical symmetry for legitimacy.

Some critics of Alma 36’s chiasm sometimes point out that some diagrams focus only on select verses or omit certain content. However, defenders have shown that using multi-level rhetorical analysis, the entire chapter—including all major themes—can be integrated into the structure without omitting key elements. The critique that important content is “left out” often arises from a surface-level or overly rigid expectation of chiastic form.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/give-ear-my-words/r ... ng-alma-36

Recent studies demonstrate that every word in Alma 36 can be integrated meaningfully into its multilevel chiastic structure, including all central events and themes. The structure is not created by omitting major elements, but rather by recognizing that not every detail needs to be paired at the same rhetorical level, as is typical in ancient chiasmus.

The most important turning point—Alma’s appeal to Jesus Christ and the atonement—is placed at the very center of the chiasm, not omitted or minimized. The narrative of his conversion, including his visionary experience, is present within the structure.

Genuine ancient chiasms, especially in longer texts, often feature subordinate units of varying size and do not require every element to be mirrored exactly. This means that some details may not have a direct counterpart, but this does not invalidate the structure or require omission of major content.

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/me ... -alma-36-0

https://interpreterfoundation.org/cfm-b ... ing-point/

https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2 ... -the-text/

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... lma_36.pdf

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Hey Wang, I suppose we've put enough out there now for lurkers and others to do some of their own research and come to their own conclusions. Thank you for joining in.

You're a good man with a good heart. That's rather obvious to everyone.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

A different opinion on Alma 36:

Alma 36 is not chiastic. LDS apologists have created the illusion that it is by only including the words in their chiasmus templates that fit their chiasmus scheme and ignoring everything that doesn't.

If you include all the verbiage in the chapter, it's obvious at one point that they have paired seven verses of material (vs. 5-11) with only two on the other side (vs. 23-24). This huge asymmetry, plus the fact that you have elements in the seven verses that have no counterpart on the other side, plus the fact that the chapter has multiple "mavericks," i.e. things that don't fit the chiasmus scheme, shows that Alma 36 is not, nor was intended to be, chiastic.

For more detail on how problematic the claim of Alma 36 being chiastic is, here are a couple of informative articles:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_105.pdf

https://mit.irr.org/alma-36-ancient-mas ... -testimony

LDS apologists have also misrepresented the facts about chiasmus only being ancient and not being known in Joseph Smith's day.

It is found throughout English literature, and chiasmus/introverted parallelism/antimetabole as a rhetorical device was known and had been written about prior to the time the Book of Mormon was published.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... 6/kijwehl/

[MG 2.0]

A different opinion on Alma 36:

Alma 36 is not chiastic. LDS apologists have created the illusion that it is by only including the words in their chiasmus templates that fit their chiasmus scheme and ignoring everything that doesn't.

If you include all the verbiage in the chapter, it's obvious at one point that they have paired seven verses of material (vs. 5-11) with only two on the other side (vs. 23-24). This huge asymmetry, plus the fact that you have elements in the seven verses that have no counterpart on the other side, plus the fact that the chapter has multiple "mavericks," i.e. things that don't fit the chiasmus scheme, shows that Alma 36 is not, nor was intended to be, chiastic.

For more detail on how problematic the claim of Alma 36 being chiastic is, here are a couple of informative articles:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_105.pdf

https://mit.irr.org/alma-36-ancient-mas ... -testimony

LDS apologists have also misrepresented the facts about chiasmus only being ancient and not being known in Joseph Smith's day.

It is found throughout English literature, and chiasmus/introverted parallelism/antimetabole as a rhetorical device was known and had been written about prior to the time the Book of Mormon was published.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... 6/kijwehl/

And I thank you, in addition to Wang, for adding extra information to benefit those that are looking at this issue from all sides. More information is always better.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

A different opinion on Alma 36:

Alma 36 is not chiastic. LDS apologists have created the illusion that it is by only including the words in their chiasmus templates that fit their chiasmus scheme and ignoring everything that doesn't.

If you include all the verbiage in the chapter, it's obvious at one point that they have paired seven verses of material (vs. 5-11) with only two on the other side (vs. 23-24). This huge asymmetry, plus the fact that you have elements in the seven verses that have no counterpart on the other side, plus the fact that the chapter has multiple "mavericks," i.e. things that don't fit the chiasmus scheme, shows that Alma 36 is not, nor was intended to be, chiastic.

For more detail on how problematic the claim of Alma 36 being chiastic is, here are a couple of informative articles:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_105.pdf

https://mit.irr.org/alma-36-ancient-mas ... -testimony

LDS apologists have also misrepresented the facts about chiasmus only being ancient and not being known in Joseph Smith's day.

It is found throughout English literature, and chiasmus/introverted parallelism/antimetabole as a rhetorical device was known and had been written about prior to the time the Book of Mormon was published.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... 6/kijwehl/

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