Yet another stair-step parallelism in the Book of Mormon

[Bernard Gui]

Reading 3 Nephi 27 this week, I came across yet another example of stair-step parallelism, or anadiplosis. In this poetic form, words or phrases are repeated in a progressing sequence that leads to a conclusion: AABBCCDDEE…..… XXXXXXX.

Using Donald Parry’s Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, I have identified 28 such parallelisms so far.

1.  1 NEPHI 10:11                      LEHI (BY NEPHI) TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

2.  1 NEPHI 12: 19 - 13:5          NEPHI AND AN ANGEL IN A VISION

3.  1 NEPHI 15: 13-20               NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

4.  1 NEPHI 15:33-35                NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

5.  1 NEPHI 19:2-5                    NEPHI TO READER 

6.  1 NEPHI 22:9-12                  NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

7.  2 NEPHI 1:13                        LEHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

8.  2 NEPHI 2:12-13                  LEHI TO JACOB

9.  2 NEPHI 9:6-9                      JACOB TO HIS PEOPLE 

10. 2 NEPHI 9:25-26                JACOB TO HIS PEOPLE 

11. 2 NEPHI 25:4-5                     NEPHI COMMENTS ON ISAIAH TO HIS PEOPLE 

12. 2 NEPHI 31:2-3                     NEPHI TO HIS BELOVED BRETHREN 

13. MOSIAH 2:17-19                  KING BENJAMIN TO HIS PEOPLE 

14. ALMA 5:37-38                       ALMA TO PEOPLE OF ZARAHEMLA 

15. ALMA 13:22                          ALMA TO ZEEZROM 

16. ALMA 32: 11-14                    ALMA TO THE POOR ON THE HILL ONIDAH

17. ALMA 41:13-14                     ALMA TO CORIANTON 

18. ALMA 42:17-20                     ALMA TO CORIANTON 

19. ALMA 42:23                          ALMA TO CORIANTON 

20. ALMA 61:8                            PAHORAN TO MORONI 

21. HELAMAN 5:6-8                   HELAMAN TO HIS SONS 

22. HELAMAN 15:7-8                SAMUEL THE LAMANITE TO THE NEPHITES

23. 3 NEPHI 27:13-22               JESUS TO HIS NEPHITE DISCIPLES

24. MORMON 9:11-13                MORMON TO UNBELIEVERS 

25. ETHER 3: 15                         JESUS TO THE BROTHER OF JARED 

26. MORONI 8:25-26                  MORMON TO MORONI 

27. MORONI 10:20-23                MORONI TO THE LAMANITES 

28. MORONI 10:32-34                MORONI TO LAMANITES 

To review or for those unfamiliar with this Hebraism, here is a summary of common characteristics:

·     They are used as teaching tools when something important needs to be communicated in a methodical and easily understood manner.

·     None is copied from the Bible.

·     Each example appears in an address or letter from a prophet or leader in his own words.

·     There is only one example in historical narratives (Alma 61:8).

·     Seven of the examples occur in discussions that include Abraham or the Abrahamic covenant.

·     Nine illuminate the Plan of Salvation in logical sequence.

·     Some include teachings that faithful LDS will recognize as information addressed in the temple.

 

Here is the one I have found in 3 Nephi 17:13-22. Jesus is summarizing his instructions to his Nephite disciples. He explains his mission from the pre-mortal existence to the final judgement and exaltation. Because he came to Earth to do his Father’s will, all those who repent, are baptized, are filled with the Spirit, and endure to the end will be saved in his Father’s kingdom.

 

Behold I have given unto you my gospel,

and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—

that I came into the world to do the will of my Father,

because my Father sent me.

And my Father sent me

that I might been lifted up upon the cross;

and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross,

that I might draw all men unto me,

   that as I have been lifted up by men

   even so should men be lifted up by the Father,

to stand before me,

to be judged of their works,

whether they be good or whether they be evil—

And for this cause have I been lifted up;

therefore, according to the power of the Father

I will draw all men unto me,

that they may be judged according to their works.

And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end…

Now this is the commandment: Repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do; Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.

 

Your comments are welcomed.

Edited July 11, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[longview]

I was very fascinated to find a chiasmus in D&C 58:1 - 7
a - 1 Hearken, O ye elders of my church, and give ear to my word, and learn of me what I will concerning you, and also concerning this land unto which I have sent you.
  b - 2 For verily I say unto you, blessed is he that keepeth my commandments, whether in life or in death; and he that is faithful in tribulation, the reward of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven.
    c - 3 Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter,
      d - and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation.
         E - 4 For after much tribulation come the blessings.
      d' - Wherefore the day cometh that ye shall be crowned with much glory; 
    c' - the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand. 5 Remember this, which I tell you before, that you may lay it to heart, and receive that which is to follow.
  b' - 6 Behold, verily I say unto you, for this cause I have sent you—that you might be obedient, and that your hearts might be prepared to bear testimony of the things which are to come;
a' - 7 And also that you might be honored in laying the foundation, and in bearing record of the land upon which the Zion of God shall stand;

[the narrator]

There has been some recent scholarship arguing that instead of an intentional form of writing, chiasmus is a natural result of memory retrieval due to how the brain stores and recollects information in oral presentations, which explains why chiasmus is present in virtually all ancient cultures but began to disappear as writing and technology replaced orality. In other words, rather than being a tool for memory, it's product of memory.

"UNDOING FORGETFULNESS: Chiasmus of Poetical Mind – a Cultural Paradigm of Archetypal Imagination"

"Chiasmus: A Phenomenon of Language, Body and Perception"

If this is the case, then chiasmus and parallelism (which may be even more so a product of oral speaking) is less evidence for the BofM being ancient and instead highlighting the oral nature of Joseph Smith's translation/dictation.

[longview]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

If this is the case, then chiasmus and parallelism (which may be even more so a product of oral speaking) is less evidence for the BofM being ancient and instead highlighting the oral nature of Joseph Smith's translation/dictation.

A few things we need to keep in mind:

• Joseph and his peers were not aware of chiastic structures
• BofM is ancient but the Book of Commandments (D&C) is/was NOT.
• therefore this is pretty good evidence of Joseph receiving actual revelations from God who chose to perpetuate various hebraic structures in modern scriptures

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, longview said:

• Joseph and his peers were not aware of chiastic structures

Nor were most ancient peoples. That's because (if these arguments are correct) chiasmus is a natural result of brain retrieval in oral performances. It wasn't something that ancient peoples consciously constructed but rather a reflection of the way in which our brains retrieve and report information when speaking extemporaneously.

17 hours ago, longview said:

BofM is ancient but the Book of Commandments (D&C) is/was NOT.

Whether or not you believe the golden plates existed and contained a record of ancient peoples, the BofM as you have read it is 100% a 19th century English dictation, as is the D&C.

17 hours ago, longview said:

therefore this is pretty good evidence of Joseph receiving actual revelations from God . . . 

If chiasmus is a natural result of how the brain recollects information in an oral performance, then it is instead evidence that the English BofM was orally dictated (regardless of whether you think Joseph was a translator or creator).

17 hours ago, longview said:

. . . who chose to perpetuate various hebraic structures in modern scriptures

Chiasmus and parallelisms are not necessarily Hebraic structures. They are present in the stories of virtually all oral cultures. This is the basis for the studies I mentioned, which ask why they were present in virtually all oral cultures but began to disappear as writing and technology replaced oracular traditions.

Edited July 11, 2025 by the narrator

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, longview said:

A few things we need to keep in mind:

• Joseph and his peers were not aware of chiastic structures
• BofM is ancient but the Book of Commandments (D&C) is/was NOT.
• therefore this is pretty good evidence of Joseph receiving actual revelations from God who chose to perpetuate various hebraic structures in modern scriptures

Or just evidence that Joseph Smith used chiastic structures without recognizing it.

Not sure why God would feel the need to seed ancient structures into revelations given in a different language and culture. Why? Maybe we should start looking for modern grammatical structures in the Bible that are completely out of place. I would find that more convincing.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

There has been some recent scholarship arguing that instead of an intentional form of writing, chiasmus is a natural result of memory retrieval due to how the brain stores and recollects information in oral presentations, which explains why chiasmus is present in virtually all ancient cultures but began to disappear as writing and technology replaced orality. In other words, rather than being a tool for memory, it's product of memory.

"UNDOING FORGETFULNESS: Chiasmus of Poetical Mind – a Cultural Paradigm of Archetypal Imagination"

"Chiasmus: A Phenomenon of Language, Body and Perception"

If this is the case, then chiasmus and parallelism (which may be even more so a product of oral speaking) is less evidence for the BofM being ancient and instead highlighting the oral nature of Joseph Smith's translation/dictation.

Anadiplosis is not chiasmus. Please don’t derail this….start your own discussion about chiasmus. Thank you.

Edited July 11, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Pyreaux]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Reading 3 Nephi 27 this week, I came across yet another example of stair-step parallelism, or anadiplosis. In this poetic form, words or phrases are repeated in a progressing sequence that leads to a conclusion: AABBCCDDEE…..… XXXXXXX.

Using Donald Parry’s Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, I have identified 28 such parallelisms so far.

1.  1 NEPHI 10:11                      LEHI (BY NEPHI) TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

2.  1 NEPHI 12: 19 - 13:5          NEPHI AND AN ANGEL IN A VISION

3.  1 NEPHI 15: 13-20               NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

4.  1 NEPHI 15:33-35                NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

5.  1 NEPHI 19:2-5                    NEPHI TO READER 

6.  1 NEPHI 22:9-12                  NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

7.  2 NEPHI 1:13                        LEHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

8.  2 NEPHI 2:12-13                  LEHI TO JACOB

9.  2 NEPHI 9:6-9                      JACOB TO HIS PEOPLE 

10. 2 NEPHI 9:25-26                JACOB TO HIS PEOPLE 

11. 2 NEPHI 25:4-5                     NEPHI COMMENTS ON ISAIAH TO HIS PEOPLE 

12. 2 NEPHI 31:2-3                     NEPHI TO HIS BELOVED BRETHREN 

13. MOSIAH 2:17-19                  KING BENJAMIN TO HIS PEOPLE 

14. ALMA 5:37-38                       ALMA TO PEOPLE OF ZARAHEMLA 

15. ALMA 13:22                          ALMA TO ZEEZROM 

16. ALMA 32: 11-14                    ALMA TO THE POOR ON THE HILL ONIDAH

17. ALMA 41:13-14                     ALMA TO CORIANTON 

18. ALMA 42:17-20                     ALMA TO CORIANTON 

19. ALMA 42:23                          ALMA TO CORIANTON 

20. ALMA 61:8                            PAHORAN TO MORONI 

21. HELAMAN 5:6-8                   HELAMAN TO HIS SONS 

22. HELAMAN 15:7-8                SAMUEL THE LAMANITE TO THE NEPHITES

23. 3 NEPHI 27:13-22               JESUS TO HIS NEPHITE DISCIPLES

24. MORMON 9:11-13                MORMON TO UNBELIEVERS 

25. ETHER 3: 15                         JESUS TO THE BROTHER OF JARED 

26. MORONI 8:25-26                  MORMON TO MORONI 

27. MORONI 10:20-23                MORONI TO THE LAMANITES 

28. MORONI 10:32-34                MORONI TO LAMANITES 

To review or for those unfamiliar with this Hebraism, here is a summary of common characteristics:

·     They are used as teaching tools when something important needs to be communicated in a methodical and easily understood manner.

·     None is copied from the Bible.

·     Each example appears in an address or letter from a prophet or leader in his own words.

·     There is only one example in historical narratives (Alma 61:8).

·     Seven of the examples occur in discussions that include Abraham or the Abrahamic covenant.

·     Nine illuminate the Plan of Salvation in logical sequence.

·     Some include teachings that faithful LDS will recognize as information addressed in the temple.

 

Here is the one I have found in 3 Nephi 17:13-22. Jesus is summarizing his instructions to his Nephite disciples. He explains his mission from the pre-mortal existence to the final judgement and exaltation. Because he came to Earth to do his Father’s will, all those who repent, are baptized, are filled with the Spirit, and endure to the end will be saved in his Father’s kingdom.

 

Behold I have given unto you my gospel,

and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—

that I came into the world to do the will of my Father,

because my Father sent me.

And my Father sent me

that I might been lifted up upon the cross;

and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross,

that I might draw all men unto me,

   that as I have been lifted up by men

   even so should men be lifted up by the Father,

to stand before me,

to be judged of their works,

whether they be good or whether they be evil—

And for this cause have I been lifted up;

therefore, according to the power of the Father

I will draw all men unto me,

that they may be judged according to their works.

And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end…

Now this is the commandment: Repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do; Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.

 

Your comments are welcomed.

Cool beans. Are there works to create reformatted parallelism editions of the Book of Mormon? To visually break up the literary patterns and genres.

[ZealouslyStriving]

20 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Cool beans. Are there works to create reformatted parallelism editions of the Book of Mormon? To visually break up the literary patterns and genres.

I knew a lady in the Restoration Branches in the PNW that was working on such a project. I don't think she ever got it into print.

[Benjamin McGuire]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Using Donald Parry’s Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, I have identified 28 such parallelisms so far.

First, stair-step parallelism is not anadiplosis. Anadiplosis is a pattern where the last word(s) of a line are repeated at the beginning of the next line. Stair-step (which Parry calls progressive) is a parallelism where there is development of an idea between lines. For the progressive parallelism, Parry provides the following example of a progressive parallel:

Quote

For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it;
and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it;
and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it;
and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. (2 Nephi 29:12)

And while there is a repetition here (the first and last part of each line), the progression is in the unique part of each line: Jews - Nephites - Other tribes of the house of Israel which I have led away - nations of the earth. The repetition helps us identify the connectedness, but, the differences are the new information that builds to a climax or the further development of the initial thought.

This cannot be anadiplosis because the end of each line and the beginning of the next line do not match. So what you are trying to point to is just an example of anadiplosis.

Anadiplosis on the other hand uses the repetition to build a sense of connection and to emphasize or build a logical chain of reasoning - and it does so in a very specific, tightly patterned way.

So that's my first point. My second point involves the problem of identification. The problem with all rhetorical structures in a text is that the moment we claim that they are rhetorical, we are also making the argument that they are intentional. To find structure in a text without also showing that the structure is intention means you are only making part of the argument. We can find structures (or ways of formatting texts) that are not intended - that are accidental; these are not rhetorical structures but are our own creations. There are broad sets of rules for identifying these kinds of things - and Parry does not engage them in that book. Several of them are obvious. A structure should not be understood as rhetorical when it crosses natural boundaries in the text. When I look at 3 Nephi 27:13-22 there are problems with trying to make an identification of this sort - and I'll point a couple of them out.

Quote

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do; Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.

So one of the biggest problems is a formatting issue. If we start with anadiplosis, immediately the structure falls apart -

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—

This cannot (at least in translation) be anadiplosis. If it were, it would read more like this:

     Behold I have given unto you my gospel,

     and my gospel which I have given unto you -

But this small change also points to a different issue. There is an overlap between anadiplosis and chiasmus. This reformatted version is also easy to format as a chiasmus. And in fact, the original text (in bold) is better formatted as chiasmus than it is as anadiplosis:

     A Behold I have given unto you my gospel,

     A' and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—     

So, going through the text we get a place where there is (at least superficially) a potentially good case for anadiplosis:

     that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

     And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross;

     and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, ....

And here the idea of anadiplosis completely falls apart. Because there is nothing that corresponds to the end of the next clause "draw all men unto me" until significantly later in the passage. But there is something there: "according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me" - and so this suggests that we should look for something else in this language. There might a three line anadiplosis there:

     A that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

     B And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross;

     C and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me

But there is nothing beyond that.There also isn't a progressive parallelism here. There are a bunch of repeated phrases - and one of the key things about arguing for the intentionality of a parallelism is that the specific language of the parallel has to be easily identifiable - or unique - within the context. The next section really shows how problematic that is:

that as I have been lifted up by men
even so should men be lifted up by the Father,
     to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
And for this cause have I been lifted up;
     therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

These repetitions do not conform to anadiplosis (and they aren't chiastic for that matter either). There also isn't a progression here. 

Another problem occurs within the narrative itself. The text uses the phrase 'And it shall come to pass" routinely as a temporal marker - it creates a textual boundaries for individual units. So when we see this phrase in the text: "And it shall come to pass," our expectation is that we won't have a parallelism that crosses that boundary (unless it is a macro-sort of parallelism). At the very least, "And it shall come to pass" is the beginning of a clause - and there is no parallel phrase at the end of the preceding clause. 

Then we have repeated phrases like we see in verse 18:

     And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

The reason why we won't see this as anadiplosis is because the identical phrases in anadiplosis have to be adjacent to each other. This is much more likely (again) to be chiastic:

     A he fulfilleth the words

          B which he hath given you

          B' and he lieth not,

     A' but fuilfilleth all his words

I am not going to argue that this is a good chiasm. The point I am trying to make is that there are always issues when a text can be formatted in different ways to create alleged poetic structures, and that the poetic structures are not particularly flexible. Anytime we can format a text into multiple formats we complicate the question of whether or not one of those formats was intended - and we have to determine which one (if any) was most likely intended by the author of the text.

It is likely because of some, or all, of these issues that Parry himself identifies 4 types of parallelisms in the text between 3 Nephi 27:13-22. In doing so, he effectively denies the likelihood that there is some larger parallelism going on in the text that is raised here.

• 27:13 chiasmus
• Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
• 27:14–15 repetition of words
• And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
• 27:19 chiasmus
• And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, ...
• 27:21 simple alternate
• 21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

And then we get back to the idea of intention. Sometimes a structure in and of itself can be understood as intentional. The best example of this in all of scripture is Psalm 119 - the longest of the Pslams. It has 176 verses. Those verses are broken down into 22 stanzas. Each stanza consists of 8 lines (8 verses) and each of the 8 lines in a stanza starts with the same letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The 22 stanzas run through the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in order. So the first 8 verses start with Aleph, the next 8 start with beth, and so on. The length of the pattern and the fact that it is followed with complete consistency is generally a sufficient argument for its intentionality. However, the formatting doesn't particularly add anything to the message - so its use is also purely aesthetic. What we don't see in 3 Nehi 27:13-22 is a pattern of meaning of language that is identifiable through the formatting of the language. There is no indication that there is a rhetorical value. The argument that I see (somewhat regularly) for a possible chiasm is that the center highlights the meaning - but this is something of a widely distributed myth about chaismus in the bible. It creates a circular argument. Unless there is a strong rhetorical value for the text to use the center of the chiasmus as a central meaning for the entire structure, it probably isn't much more than a turning point for the structure. Our placing our own values on that middle point without a real corresponding rhetorical value in the text is going to be a misreading of the text.

The value of anadiplosis - especially in longer sequences - is evident. Even in smaller doses - consider Yoda: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering" (Episode 1). And this is also a potential stair-step parallelism. Rhetorically, it helps us understand Yoda's next sentence: "I sense much fear in you." There are some longer ones that have been popular in various forms - this one popularized by Ghandi: "Your beliefs become your thoughts, your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, your habits become your values, your values become your destiny." The longer these chains continue, the more they build this cadence - the language anticipates a crescendo. The more that the reuse of the same terms is spread out, the more words and phrases you use that are not repeated, the less likely it becomes that you are dealing with anadiplosis. This is also true for lots of these related poetic structures. If we are simply finding structures as we read because we are looking for them - and the language itself doesn't lead us to see them automatically, the less likely it is that we have something that is a deliberate form or structure. The same is true when we ask how the recognition of the structure changes our understanding of the text. If our understanding shifts as we recognize the patterns, then it is more likely to be rhetorical. If we simply say - see, here is the center so this must be the emphasis, then it's likely we are introducing something that is not intentional and so creating space for misunderstanding. 

From my perspective, a lot of the suggested parallelisms in the text of the Book of Mormon are likely to be incorrect identifications - and create more misunderstandings than they help with understanding the text. If you want to argue that there are real rhetorical strategies at play, the argument isn't about how you can format the text to illustrate it, but the rhetorical argument about how the formatting adds value to understanding the text. Otherwise, it is just as likely that the identification is wrong - that the structure is merely incidental to the text, and not a deliberate use of a rhetorical strategy.

[the narrator]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Anadiplosis is not chiasmus. Please don’t derail this….start your own discussion about chiasmus. Thank you.

Longview brought up chiasmus. But the relation of brain function and rhetorical structures isn't limited to chiasmus. If you want similar studies that include anadiplosis, here you go:

"Memory and Literary Structures"

Repeating Words, Retelling Stories (this refers to the question of whether these rhetorical tropes are a product of memory or for memory as the chicken-egg controversy, and argues for the former).

"A Cognitive Ontology of Rhetorical Figures" (this doesn't discuss anadiplosis directly but argues that further studies should include it and would likely see the same result)

"A Mirror on the Mind: Stevens, Chiasmus, and Autism Spectrum Disorder" - this is particularly interesting to me, as I think it very likely that Joseph (like myself) was on the ASD. (In short at a fundamental level, ASD brains organize/structure reality in a way that is prone to creating various poetic structures, which is why many musicians happen to be autistic. For example, it seems rather clear that Eminem is able to do what he does because he is on the spectrum.) (I'm also of the view that only a small fraction of people on the ASD are even aware that they are.)

Slightly related, but most about something else. IMO William Davis's recent article on Skousen and Carmack's EME claims should settle the matter.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2025 by the narrator

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe we should start looking for modern grammatical structures in the Bible that are completely out of place.

Probably not what you are looking for, but in his recent Dialogue article, Bill Davis shows how some supposed "Hebraic-like" poetic structures claimed by Skousen are instead adaptations of New Testament passages.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

Longview brought up chiasmus. But the relation of brain function and rhetorical structures isn't limited to chiasmus. If you want similar studies that include anadiplosis, here you go:

"Memory and Literary Structures"

Repeating Words, Retelling Stories (this refers to the question of whether these rhetorical tropes are a product of memory or for memory as the chicken-egg controversy, and argues for the former).

"A Cognitive Ontology of Rhetorical Figures" (this doesn't discuss anadiplosis directly but argues that further studies should include it and would likely see the same result)

"A Mirror on the Mind: Stevens, Chiasmus, and Autism Spectrum Disorder" - this is particularly interesting to me, as I think it very likely that Joseph (like myself) was on the ASD. (In short at a fundamental level, ASD brains organize/structure reality in a way that is prone to creating various poetic structures, which is why many musicians happen to be autistic. For example, it seems rather clear that Eminem is able to do what he does because he is on the spectrum.) (I'm also of the view that only a small fraction of people on the ASD are even aware that they are.)

Slightly related, but most about something else. IMO William Davis's recent article on Skousen and Carmack's EME claims should settle the matter.

 

 

Please stop this derail. This topic is about the stair-step passage in 3 Nephi 27, not autism. Start your own discussion.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Cool beans. Are there works to create reformatted parallelism editions of the Book of Mormon? To visually break up the literary patterns and genres.

This is what you are looking for. Donald Parry’s Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon  It is the entire text reformatted. 

Edited July 11, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

First, stair-step parallelism is not anadiplosis. Anadiplosis is a pattern where the last word(s) of a line are repeated at the beginning of the next line. Stair-step (which Parry calls progressive) is a parallelism where there is development of an idea between lines. For the progressive parallelism, Parry provides the following example of a progressive parallel:

And while there is a repetition here (the first and last part of each line), the progression is in the unique part of each line: Jews - Nephites - Other tribes of the house of Israel which I have led away - nations of the earth. The repetition helps us identify the connectedness, but, the differences are the new information that builds to a climax or the further development of the initial thought.

This cannot be anadiplosis because the end of each line and the beginning of the next line do not match. So what you are trying to point to is just an example of anadiplosis.

Anadiplosis on the other hand uses the repetition to build a sense of connection and to emphasize or build a logical chain of reasoning - and it does so in a very specific, tightly patterned way.

So that's my first point. My second point involves the problem of identification. The problem with all rhetorical structures in a text is that the moment we claim that they are rhetorical, we are also making the argument that they are intentional. To find structure in a text without also showing that the structure is intention means you are only making part of the argument. We can find structures (or ways of formatting texts) that are not intended - that are accidental; these are not rhetorical structures but are our own creations. There are broad sets of rules for identifying these kinds of things - and Parry does not engage them in that book. Several of them are obvious. A structure should not be understood as rhetorical when it crosses natural boundaries in the text. When I look at 3 Nephi 27:13-22 there are problems with trying to make an identification of this sort - and I'll point a couple of them out.

So one of the biggest problems is a formatting issue. If we start with anadiplosis, immediately the structure falls apart -

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—

This cannot (at least in translation) be anadiplosis. If it were, it would read more like this:

     Behold I have given unto you my gospel,

     and my gospel which I have given unto you -

But this small change also points to a different issue. There is an overlap between anadiplosis and chiasmus. This reformatted version is also easy to format as a chiasmus. And in fact, the original text (in bold) is better formatted as chiasmus than it is as anadiplosis:

     A Behold I have given unto you my gospel,

     A' and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—     

So, going through the text we get a place where there is (at least superficially) a potentially good case for anadiplosis:

     that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

     And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross;

     and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, ....

And here the idea of anadiplosis completely falls apart. Because there is nothing that corresponds to the end of the next clause "draw all men unto me" until significantly later in the passage. But there is something there: "according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me" - and so this suggests that we should look for something else in this language. There might a three line anadiplosis there:

     A that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

     B And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross;

     C and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me

But there is nothing beyond that.There also isn't a progressive parallelism here. There are a bunch of repeated phrases - and one of the key things about arguing for the intentionality of a parallelism is that the specific language of the parallel has to be easily identifiable - or unique - within the context. The next section really shows how problematic that is:

that as I have been lifted up by men
even so should men be lifted up by the Father,
     to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
And for this cause have I been lifted up;
     therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

These repetitions do not conform to anadiplosis (and they aren't chiastic for that matter either). There also isn't a progression here. 

Another problem occurs within the narrative itself. The text uses the phrase 'And it shall come to pass" routinely as a temporal marker - it creates a textual boundaries for individual units. So when we see this phrase in the text: "And it shall come to pass," our expectation is that we won't have a parallelism that crosses that boundary (unless it is a macro-sort of parallelism). At the very least, "And it shall come to pass" is the beginning of a clause - and there is no parallel phrase at the end of the preceding clause. 

Then we have repeated phrases like we see in verse 18:

     And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

The reason why we won't see this as anadiplosis is because the identical phrases in anadiplosis have to be adjacent to each other. This is much more likely (again) to be chiastic:

     A he fulfilleth the words

          B which he hath given you

          B' and he lieth not,

     A' but fuilfilleth all his words

I am not going to argue that this is a good chiasm. The point I am trying to make is that there are always issues when a text can be formatted in different ways to create alleged poetic structures, and that the poetic structures are not particularly flexible. Anytime we can format a text into multiple formats we complicate the question of whether or not one of those formats was intended - and we have to determine which one (if any) was most likely intended by the author of the text.

It is likely because of some, or all, of these issues that Parry himself identifies 4 types of parallelisms in the text between 3 Nephi 27:13-22. In doing so, he effectively denies the likelihood that there is some larger parallelism going on in the text that is raised here.

• 27:13 chiasmus
• Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
• 27:14–15 repetition of words
• And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
• 27:19 chiasmus
• And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, ...
• 27:21 simple alternate
• 21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

And then we get back to the idea of intention. Sometimes a structure in and of itself can be understood as intentional. The best example of this in all of scripture is Psalm 119 - the longest of the Pslams. It has 176 verses. Those verses are broken down into 22 stanzas. Each stanza consists of 8 lines (8 verses) and each of the 8 lines in a stanza starts with the same letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The 22 stanzas run through the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in order. So the first 8 verses start with Aleph, the next 8 start with beth, and so on. The length of the pattern and the fact that it is followed with complete consistency is generally a sufficient argument for its intentionality. However, the formatting doesn't particularly add anything to the message - so its use is also purely aesthetic. What we don't see in 3 Nehi 27:13-22 is a pattern of meaning of language that is identifiable through the formatting of the language. There is no indication that there is a rhetorical value. The argument that I see (somewhat regularly) for a possible chiasm is that the center highlights the meaning - but this is something of a widely distributed myth about chaismus in the bible. It creates a circular argument. Unless there is a strong rhetorical value for the text to use the center of the chiasmus as a central meaning for the entire structure, it probably isn't much more than a turning point for the structure. Our placing our own values on that middle point without a real corresponding rhetorical value in the text is going to be a misreading of the text.

The value of anadiplosis - especially in longer sequences - is evident. Even in smaller doses - consider Yoda: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering" (Episode 1). And this is also a potential stair-step parallelism. Rhetorically, it helps us understand Yoda's next sentence: "I sense much fear in you." There are some longer ones that have been popular in various forms - this one popularized by Ghandi: "Your beliefs become your thoughts, your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, your habits become your values, your values become your destiny." The longer these chains continue, the more they build this cadence - the language anticipates a crescendo. The more that the reuse of the same terms is spread out, the more words and phrases you use that are not repeated, the less likely it becomes that you are dealing with anadiplosis. This is also true for lots of these related poetic structures. If we are simply finding structures as we read because we are looking for them - and the language itself doesn't lead us to see them automatically, the less likely it is that we have something that is a deliberate form or structure. The same is true when we ask how the recognition of the structure changes our understanding of the text. If our understanding shifts as we recognize the patterns, then it is more likely to be rhetorical. If we simply say - see, here is the center so this must be the emphasis, then it's likely we are introducing something that is not intentional and so creating space for misunderstanding. 

From my perspective, a lot of the suggested parallelisms in the text of the Book of Mormon are likely to be incorrect identifications - and create more misunderstandings than they help with understanding the text. If you want to argue that there are real rhetorical strategies at play, the argument isn't about how you can format the text to illustrate it, but the rhetorical argument about how the formatting adds value to understanding the text. Otherwise, it is just as likely that the identification is wrong - that the structure is merely incidental to the text, and not a deliberate use of a rhetorical strategy.

Thank you for the thoughtful correction on the term anadiplosis. I am well aware that it is not the best word for this Nephite rhetorical device, but it will be correctly used in the future.  While it may not perfectly conform with rhetorical structures we know (whatever those may be called,) this is a structure that is repeatedly and intentionally appears in Nephite discourse to teach important gospel ideas, and it does serve the purposes I have described. It might also be called gradated or climax parallelism. For convenience and lack of a better term I refer to it as stair-step parallelism because that best describes what is going on. I apologize for the confusion.

3 Nephi 27 is not be as clear-cut a stair-step as one might wish.  I thought about noting that in the OP, but decided not to; nevertheless, it is clearly an intentional and wordy sequence of repeated identical phrases in parallel that leads the reader step by step to an important conclusion. IMO, this is not how a young 19th-Century frontiersman would have spoken. 
 

This may be simpler….

Quote

This is my gospel: my Father sent me into the world to be lifted up on the cross and to draw all men to me to be judged of their works. Those who obey His will shall be saved.  

 

Edited July 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please stop this derail. This topic is about the stair-step passage in 3 Nephi 27, not autism. Start your own discussion.

Lolz. I had one sentence about it. Why aren't you getting upset at Longview for replying only about chiasmus? Seems like it's not a supposed derailing that bothers you but maybe me pointing out that poetic structures might not indicate what you think they do.

[the narrator]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

this is a structure that is repeatedly and intentionally used in Nephite discourse 

Let me fix this for you

"this is a structure that is repeatedly and may or may not be intentionally used in an orally dictated English translation of a purported Nephite discourse"

Edited July 11, 2025 by the narrator

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

Let me fix this for you

"this is a structure that is repeatedly and may or may not be intentionally used in an orally dictated English translation of a purported Nephite discourse"

How about making your point without the insult? 

Edited July 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, the narrator said:

Lolz. I had one sentence about it. Why aren't you getting upset at Longview for replying only about chiasmus? Seems like it's not a supposed derailing that bothers you but maybe me pointing out that poetic structures might not indicate what you think they do.

Not in the least. That’s why I always ask for comments. I appreciate Ben’s comments about the term that I was using incorrectly and will make the necessary changes.

Longview merely posted a chiasmus he found interesting. It was you who pursued the derail. That bothers me because as you can see here we are on the side track.
 

Quote

There has been some recent scholarship arguing that instead of an intentional form of writing, chiasmus is a natural result of memory retrieval due to how the brain stores and recollects information in oral presentations, which explains why chiasmus is present in virtually all ancient cultures but began to disappear as writing and technology replaced orality. In other words, rather than being a tool for memory, it's product of memory.

"UNDOING FORGETFULNESS: Chiasmus of Poetical Mind – a Cultural Paradigm of Archetypal Imagination"

"Chiasmus: A Phenomenon of Language, Body and Perception"

If this is the case, then chiasmus and parallelism (which may be even more so a product of oral speaking) is less evidence for the BofM being ancient and instead highlighting the oral nature of Joseph Smith's translation/dictation.

 

Edited July 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How about making your point without the insult? 

insult? Please explain.

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It was you who pursued the derail.

Please explain how my comments on how rhetorical tropes may be a product of brain function is derailing the thread.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Please explain how my comments on how rhetorical tropes may be a product of brain function is derailing the thread.

There is no reference in Bernard’s remarks to the source of the parallelism, perhaps he only wants to examine it in a literary sense, as in its construction, possible purpose, etc. similar to Ben’s comment.

On the other post, I am not seeing an insult either, though perhaps Bernard sees suggesting a non spiritual source for scripture construction or lack of an ancient source for something that claims to be ancient scripture as insulting.

Edited July 12, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

There is no reference in Bernard’s remarks to the source of the parallelism, perhaps he only wants to examine it in a literary sense, as in its construction, possible purpose, etc. similar to Ben’s comment.

 

Perhaps, but he never said what he wanted, just that "Your comments are welcomed unless you are the narrator"

oh...I guess I should have read that whole sentence.

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/12/2025 at 2:58 PM, the narrator said:

insult? Please explain.

“Let me fix it for you” is condescending and insulting. Make your comments without the insults, please. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/12/2025 at 3:38 PM, Calm said:

There is no reference in Bernard’s remarks to the source of the parallelism, perhaps he only wants to examine it in a literary sense, as in its construction, possible purpose, etc. similar to Ben’s comment.

On the other post, I am not seeing an insult either, though perhaps Bernard sees suggesting a non spiritual source for scripture construction or lack of an ancient source for something that claims to be ancient scripture as insulting.

I’m not sure what you mean there was no reference to the source. I posted this in the OP:

“Reading 3 Nephi 27 this week, I came across yet another example of stair-step parallelism, or anadiplosis. In this poetic form, words or phrases are repeated in a progressing sequence that leads to a conclusion: AABBCCDDEE…..… XXXXXXX…Here is the one I have found in 3 Nephi 17:13-22.…”

As Ben aptly pointed out, I used the term “anadiplosis” inappropriately. That has been corrected. This thread is about yet another gradated or stair-step parallelism in the Book of Mormon (28 so far) not about chiasmus.

IMO Narrator’s comment right off the bat is a derail….

“There has been some recent scholarship arguing that instead of an intentional form of writing, chiasmus is a natural result of memory retrieval due to how the brain stores and recollects information in oral presentations, which explains why chiasmus is present in virtually all ancient cultures but began to disappear as writing and technology replaced orality. In other words, rather than being a tool for memory, it's product of memory.“

You and Narrator may not agree, but I would be happy to participate in a discussion of his making on the matter of chiasmus, autism, or memory, and I asked him politely to do that. My hope was to discuss 3 Nephi 27:13-22. The subsequent comments bear this out….

No, I’m not concerned about non-spiritual sources. Saying “Let me fix this for you” is condescending and insulting. 

Edited July 13, 2025 by Bernard Gui