Chiasmus Vs Standard Rhetoric

[ANACO]

While studying the LGT I came across "Chiasmus versus Standard Rhetoric" alleged in the text of the Book of Mormon.

Chiasmus was discovered in the Book of Mormon in1967. This article at NAMI by FARMS shows a verse in the Book of Helaman containing chiasmus: http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=832 Helaman 6:7-13. Very nice.

Chiasmus has also been found in Mesoamerica texts. Especially in the Maya Popol Vuh: http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=814

See how it matches? This has been declared as evidence that Book of Mormon Geography was in Mesoamerica – also known as the Limited Geography Theory or LGT – because Chiasmus has been found in the Book of Mormon and in the Maya Popl Vuh.

---BUT--- what happens when the text of the Book of Mormon, in the same Book of Helaman, contradicts with the LGT?

“There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites "covered" the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric.” http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=181

See Helaman 3 verse eight

So here’s the line of reasoning:

>> Because Izapa Stela 5 does not depict Lehi’s dream (it’s actually a garden gnome getting a buzz from smoking tree sap)

>> The ancient Maya city Izapa is not a Nephite City --->

“The internal evidence from the Book of Mormon seems to be definitive that the Nephites had nothing to do with Izapa, and it is doubtful that the Lamanites did either.”

http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=181

>> Since Izapa, being a big city, was not a Nephite or Lamanite City

>> Thus the Nephites and Lamanites did not cover the face of the land

>> Therefore, when the Book of Helaman states the Nephites covered the face of the land

>> The statement “covered” the face of the land is nothing but “standard rhetoric”

>> This is because the Nephites dwelt in the same location as the Maya, the Maya being in Mesoamerica before 600 B.C.

So you see, Chiasmus discovered in the Book of Mormon and in the Maya Popol Vu, clearly indicate the Book of Mormon supports the LGT Theory.

But when the text of the Book of Mormon contradicts the LGT Theory, well, that same text in the same Book of Helaman then becomes nothing but some lowly “standard rhetoric."

To summarize: The LGT Theory isn’t what’s in error. Why, it’s the Book of Mormon!

The “Keystone of our Religion,” one of our Standard Works – contains “standard rhetoric.”

Why again? Because the LGT is more important than the Book of Mormon, all why attempting to prove the Book of Mormon is true by using the LGT.

Edited August 25, 2012 by ANACO

[Glenn101]

No one is trying to prove the Book of Mormon is true using the LGT. If you think so, please provide a reference.

Glenn

[zerinus]

While studying the LGT I came across "Chiasmus versus Standard Rhetoric" alleged in the text of the Book of Mormon.

Chiasmus was discovered in the Book of Mormon in1967. This article at NAMI by FARMS shows a verse in the Book of Helaman containing chiasmus: http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=832 Helaman 6:7-13. Very nice.

Chiasmus has also been found in Mesoamerica texts. Especially in the Maya Popol Vuh: http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=814

See how it matches? This has been declared as evidence that Book of Mormon Geography was in Mesoamerica – also known as the Limited Geography Theory or LGT – because Chiasmus has been found in the Book of Mormon and in the Maya Popl Vuh.

---BUT--- what happens when the text of the Book of Mormon, in the same Book of Helaman, contradicts with the LGT?

“There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites "covered" the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric.” http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=181

See Helaman 3 verse eight

So here’s the line of reasoning:

>> Because Izapa Stela 5 does not depict Lehi’s dream (it’s actually a garden gnome getting a buzz from smoking tree sap)

>> The ancient Maya city Izapa is not a Nephite City --->

“The internal evidence from the Book of Mormon seems to be definitive that the Nephites had nothing to do with Izapa, and it is doubtful that the Lamanites did either.”

http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=181

>> Since Izapa, being a big city, was not a Nephite or Lamanite City

>> Thus the Nephites and Lamanites did not cover the face of the land

>> Therefore, when the Book of Helaman states the Nephites covered the face of the land

>> The statement “covered” the face of the land is nothing but “standard rhetoric”

>> This is because the Nephites dwelt in the same location as the Maya, the Maya being in Mesoamerica before 600 B.C.

So you see, Chiasmus discovered in the Book of Mormon and in the Maya Popol Vu, clearly indicate the Book of Mormon supports the LGT Theory.

But when the text of the Book of Mormon contradicts the LGT Theory, well, that same text in the same Book of Helaman then becomes nothing but some lowly “standard rhetoric."

To summarize: The LGT Theory isn’t what’s in error. Why, it’s the Book of Mormon!

The “Keystone of our Religion,” one of our Standard Works – contains “standard rhetoric.”

Why again? Because the LGT is more important than the Book of Mormon, all why attempting to prove the Book of Mormon is true by using the LGT.

Some version of the LGT must inevitably be true, because there is no way that a small handful of Isralites landing somewhere on the American east coast could have covered all the continent any time soon (or even at all). The problem with LGT is two things: (1) LGT and the "others" theory in the Book of Mormon are two different things, and they shouldn't be mixed up together. Support in the LGT does not automatically lead to support for the "others" theory. (2) While LGT is inevitable in the early part of Nephite history, the language of the Book of Mormon suggests otherwise for the latter part of their History. As we move on to the latter stages of Nephite history, we come across large population movements to great distances which is at odds with straight LGT thoughout their history. LGT theorists like to maintain a straight LGT throughout Nephite history, whereas the text of the Book of Mormon (and the D&C) appears to be telling a different story.

Edited August 26, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

No one is trying to prove the Book of Mormon is true using the LGT. If you think so, please provide a reference.

Glenn

In a way they do, because LDS "apologists" in the past have tended to adopt a very broad definition for the word "apologetics," and haved included articles such as those referenced by the OP as being part of Mormon apologetics, when in fact it isn't. It is neither apologetics nor scholarship. It is too speculative to be classed as serious scholarship; and it does nothing to validate Mormonism or the Book of Mormon that it should be calssed as apologetics. They may be entertaining to some Mormons; but their impact and value is extremely limited.

[Glenn101]

In a way they do, because LDS "apologists" in the past have tended to adopt a very broad definition for the word "apologetics," and haved included articles such as those referenced by the OP as being part of Mormon apologetics, when in fact it isn't. It is neither apologetics nor scholarship. It is too speculative to be classed as serious scholarship; and it does nothing to validate Mormonism or the Book of Mormon that it should be calssed as apologetics. They may be entertaining to some Mormons; but their impact and value is extremely limited.

Which of the articles that were referenced are not scholarship and are too speculative to be classed as serious scholarship?

Glenn

[zerinus]

Which of the articles that were referenced are not scholarship and are too speculative to be classed as serious scholarship?

Glenn

I was speaking in general terms. I have already expressed my views on the three articles that have already been published in the Interpreter, and I don't think it is necessary to comment on every single article that ever been published. Some of them are better than others, and some have been pretty worthless.

[DBMormon]

Back to Chaismus.... How do the critics explain Alma 36? coincidence?

[Glenn101]

I was speaking in general terms. I have already expressed my views on the three articles that have already been published in the Interpreter, and I don't think it is necessary to comment on every single article that ever been published. Some of them are better than others, and some have been pretty worthless.

I was talking in specific terms, just the articles cited by the OP of the thread.

Glenn

[Brant Gardner]

Chiasmus isn't a proof of the Book of Mormon, though it has been taken that way by many. Chiasmus among the Maya exists at least in th Popol Vuh, as well as in at least one hieroglyphic text. It is interesting, but not a proof of the book of Mormon. Your logic thread depends upon mistaken assumptions and therefore is doomed to a mistaken conclusion.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[ANACO]

You've all missed the obvious.

Claiming the Book of Mormon contains "standard rhetoric" shows how low the text of the Book of Mormon is esteemed in the eyes of those who promote a LGT/Mesoamerica Theory.

This is proof of how you have elevated your unproven Theory of the past 40+ years, over the Book of Mormon.

You're willing to promote yourselves and your organizations in finding chiasmus in the text - then use it to compare to chiasmus discovered in Mesoamerica texts (if not, why the articles that I linked to?).

Yet, on the other hand, you're willing to claim the Book of Mormon contains lowly "standard rhetoric" when the text doesn't match the specifics of your theory.

This is nothing more than an example started with this false premise by the original promoter:

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history." http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196

This is what needs to be told about the organizations and its members that promote this unproven Book of Mormon geography theory. That the promoters of this theory have diminished the text of the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith. Based on what? Nothing. Nothing proven. Nothing officially proclaimed by the Church. All but based on personal opinions by these same members who would get up in a fast and testimony meeting and declare the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God and Joseph Smith to be His prophet.

I find this to be duplicitous.

Then you will be leaving the thread.

[The Nehor]

Okay, now what do we talk about in this thread? How about we all post cute raccoon pics?

Did you know that in Russian the term used for raccoon means "little washing bears"? Cool huh?

[Calm]

[volgadon]

Okay, now what do we talk about in this thread? How about we all post cute raccoon pics?

Did you know that in Russian the term used for raccoon means "little washing bears"? Cool huh?

The full term is almost never used. Yenot is the usual, and it is probably a loanword from the German gennetkatze, or the French genette. In English the word is genet, but the root is from the Arabic Jarnait. Not the word for bear, at any rate. As a fairly literal translation, the Rinsing Yenot works for Yenot Ploskun.

[The Nehor]

The full term is almost never used. Yenot is the usual, and it is probably a loanword from the German gennetkatze, or the French genette. In English the word is genet, but the root is from the Arabic Jarnait. Not the word for bear, at any rate. As a fairly literal translation, the Rinsing Yenot works for Yenot Ploskun.

Well I was not expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

[volgadon]

Well I was not expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise... Surprise and fear... Fear and surprise... He is my hero, I count just as well.

[Bernard Gui]

A lot of raccoons live in our neighborhood. Last month I trapped and relocated 17 squirrels from

our yard. My neighbor has some rabbits. Squirrel, rabbit and raccoon make delicious burgoo.

Anybody want to come over and try some?

Edited September 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[DBMormon]

If we take the premise that the BOM is untrue, how do we rationally explain ALMA 36 and it's complex Chaistic structure along with it's immense length?

Joseph just winging it? Sidney Rigdon? Spaulding?

Doesn't seem to hold water other then to say it was intended though not obvious from a surface reading that it is there. In other words nothing in the text draws attention to it other then itself.

[The Nehor]

If we take the premise that the BOM is untrue, how do we rationally explain ALMA 36 and it's complex Chaistic structure along with it's immense length?

Joseph just winging it? Sidney Rigdon? Spaulding?

Doesn't seem to hold water other then to say it was intended though not obvious from a surface reading that it is there. In other words nothing in the text draws attention to it other then itself.

What about this relates to raccoons? Please do not try to derail the thread,

[Calm]

To get it back on track:

[zerinus]

There are loads of them on this site:

http://my.opera.com/...picture=1415037

Click on the arrows to cycle through the pics.

[Freedom]

We have loads of raccoons where were we live. for several years, a female raccoon would nest in the attic or our shed. She remained with the babies for weeks without leaving for food or water, despite the great heat. She would not go near any water we provided. We went through several blow-up pools that raccoons would puncture. One night before a trip, raccoons were playing in our pool keeping us awake. they were passing a ball back and forth in our small 4 foot swimming pool. I ran outside to chase them away and got caught up in the chase when I realized I was 4 houses down the road with a broom handle in my hand in nothing but my garments. My wife was freaking out concerned about what the neighbors would think.

Tragically, we had a neighbor who would capture and torture raccoon's in an electrified live trap. Animal Protection would do nothing. The other raccoon's were watching on helplessly as their friend/sibling sat in agony. I climbed into their yard, cut the wires and broke open the trap. The raccoons gave me a nod of thanks and turned their backs and walked away without fear. Usually racoons back away, or run forward. I freed them a few times from his cages and we became 'friends', although I never again trusted them with my pools.

[Calm]

I think we should seriously consider establishing a Racoon Rescue Squad for future threads that need total derailment for the safety and sanity of board members. I nominate Nehor as President or Director or Captain or whatever name he desires to anoint himself with.

[Calm]

You are a good man, Freedom.

[Tacenda]

We have loads of raccoons where were we live. for several years, a female raccoon would nest in the attic or our shed. She remained with the babies for weeks without leaving for food or water, despite the great heat. She would not go near any water we provided. We went through several blow-up pools that raccoons would puncture. One night before a trip, raccoons were playing in our pool keeping us awake. they were passing a ball back and forth in our small 4 foot swimming pool. I ran outside to chase them away and got caught up in the chase when I realized I was 4 houses down the road with a broom handle in my hand in nothing but my garments. My wife was freaking out concerned about what the neighbors would think.

Tragically, we had a neighbor who would capture and torture raccoon's in an electrified live trap. Animal Protection would do nothing. The other raccoon's were watching on helplessly as their friend/sibling sat in agony. I climbed into their yard, cut the wires and broke open the trap. The raccoons gave me a nod of thanks and turned their backs and walked away without fear. Usually racoons back away, or run forward. I freed them a few times from his cages and we became 'friends', although I never again trusted them with my pools.

That was a great story!

[volgadon]

Violating Godwin's Law: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/nazi-raccoons/

Setting things right: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2009/04/30/2003442364