Daniel Peterson's Series on Horses in the Book of Mormon

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

Paul Owen is presenting a theory that the text "lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity."

Paul Owen is presenting a theory that Joseph Smith "repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book."

Nah, that's not at all what he was presenting.

Yes, that is what he is presenting.

16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Can you point to the part where you think he does?

His theories are alternative to the explanation given by Joseph Smith.  QED.

Either Lehi and Nephi existed, or they did not.  Either they traveled to the Americas, or not.  Either their descendants kept a record of events and persons and teachings for 1,000 years or so, or not.  Either one of their descendents, Mormon, abridged that record, or not.  Either there were actual metal plates buried by Mormon's son, Moroni, or not.  Either Joseph Smith was told about these plates by a then-resurrected angelic Moroni, or not.  Either Joseph eventually obtained physical possession of those plates, or not.  Either he translated the record found on those plates through divine means, or not.  Either the Three and Eight Witnesses saw these plates, or not.  Either the Angel Moroni showed these plates to the Three Witnesses, and they heard the voice of God testify of them, or not.

Paul Owen's theories, all of them, posit the "not" alternatives above.  It's just a variation on the "inspired fiction" theory, which has been addressed on this board a lot.  A lot.  I think the best scholarly treatment of this family of ideas is Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

An informal and ephemeral discussion board is not quite what I had in mind.

You would like non-Mormon scholars to engage with well-informed people (like Daniel Peterson or Ryan Dahle), but not in publications that are meant to be faith-promoting and not on discussion boards like this. Where then do you suggest these discussions happen?

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

None seem particularly plausible, based on the text and the historical record pertaining to the origins of the text.

Then what explanation would you give for the suggestive parallels between 2 Esdras and 1 Nephi?

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

As Gee notes: "Owen skirts the issue of whether his proposal that it is authentically ancient and still modern fiction is logically coherent..."

Owen doesn't skirt the issue, I'm in touch with him and discussing. However he did say he has stop engaging with those Mormon scholars who responded to his article with sarcasm and curt dismissals.

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that is what he is presenting.

 

"Paul Owen is presenting a theory that the text lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity and a theory that Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book."

Reference(s) please.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 

"Paul Owen is presenting a theory that the text lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity and a theory that Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book."

Reference(s) please.

"What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World."  (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 99)

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World."  (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 99)

You've read far too much into that one sentence.

John Gee: “He concludes that the Book of Mormon is a ‘fictional (though ancient) narrative.’. . . Since the Book of Mormon claims to have come from the New World, Owen is arguing that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.”

Paul Owen's Response: "This is an inaccurate generalization of my article’s argument. First of all, the tone of my actual wording in the article is more tentative than Gee suggests: “What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text [italics in original] with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World” (p. 99). Note the qualifiers: “suggesting” and “could be.” Those qualifiers were offered out of a mindfulness of the context in which I was writing (a publication of BYU’s Maxwell Institute). In the article, I neither made a hard commitment to the Book of Mormon’s fictional and/or modern character on the one hand, nor to its origin in the Old World as opposed to New World (whether ancient or modern) on the other. Secondly, I actually presented and discussed four possibilities (which Gee ignores) regarding the origins of the Book of Mormon that could possibly account for its apparent dependence upon the content of 2 Esdras (discussed on pp. 92-93)."

https://mi.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-bom

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

"What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World."  (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 99)

You've read far too much into that one sentence.

John Gee: “He concludes that the Book of Mormon is a ‘fictional (though ancient) narrative.’. . . Since the Book of Mormon claims to have come from the New World, Owen is arguing that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.”

Paul Owen's Response: "This is an inaccurate generalization of my article’s argument. First of all, the tone of my actual wording in the article is more tentative than Gee suggests: “What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text [italics in original] with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World” (p. 99). Note the qualifiers: “suggesting” and “could be.” Those qualifiers were offered out of a mindfulness of the context in which I was writing (a publication of BYU’s Maxwell Institute). In the article, I neither made a hard commitment to the Book of Mormon’s fictional and/or modern character on the one hand, nor to its origin in the Old World as opposed to New World (whether ancient or modern) on the other. Secondly, I actually presented and discussed four possibilities (which Gee ignores) regarding the origins of the Book of Mormon that could possibly account for its apparent dependence upon the content of 2 Esdras (discussed on pp. 92-93)."

https://mi.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-bom

I don't follow.  How do the qualifiers change the substance of what he said?

I appreciate his "mindfulness of the context," but it doesn't substantially alter the calculus re: the propriety of the Maxwell Institute turning itself into a venue for publishing work that is at odds with the teachings of the Church.

I think it would have been better if Gee had been a bit more circumspect and tactful by avoiding the "anti-Mormon" label.  But again, such an incremental improvement would not have altered the calculus much, either.  We're still left with a theory that is a variation on the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

This is pretty far afield of the topic of this thread.  Perhaps you should go ahead and start another thread?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2020 by smac97

[Stargazer]

On 2/9/2020 at 6:00 PM, Meadowchik said:

The point is that chiasmus is a common way to speak.

No, it isn't. Especially not in extended speech -- unless it is scripted.

On 2/9/2020 at 6:00 PM, Meadowchik said:

It doesn't require literary training. It is rhetorical symmetry, it can also flow naturally from a logical line of thought. Like a seven-year-old saying, "If God created everything, then who created God?" I personally see it constantly in mathematical proofs, and to me that just confims how easily logical thinking lends itself to chiasmus. Take it however you want, but that's observation of language and its use.

Your seven year old is sweet, and it might be chiasmus, but it's hardly what we're talking about in the Book of Mormon.  And of course you see it in mathematical proofs, because such proofs require trains of logic where statements must follow other statements in logical order, and must eventually come back to the quod erat demonstrandum. This is not truly comparable to literary chiasmus, at least in my humble opinion.

I invite you to consider the extended chiasmus in Alma 36:1–30.  I shan't try to illustrate it here, but go HERE for the illustration. Go down the page until you reach the relevant diagram, and study it for a few minutes. And then I want you to try to convince me that Joseph Smith composed this in his head and casually spoke it out to the scribe while he had his head planted in his hat.

The mere presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is perhaps not noteworthy, but that a 25 year old farm boy with a 4th grade education could come up with stuff like this on the fly should compel anyone to pause and seriously consider what the heck was going on.  Making casual hand-waving about how common it is to come up conversational chiasmi in order to explain Alma 36:1-30 borders on the ridiculous.

There is a signal being sent here. The signal that God sent to the world was this question: "Could a young, inexperienced and uneducated back-country lump like Joseph Smith come up with the literary masterpiece (for such it is) that is the Book of Mormon without Me, God, being behind him every step of the way?"  Some people would prefer Joseph to be just a common garden-variety natural literary genius of the highest order rather than admit that God might have had anything to do with it.

 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, it isn't. Especially not in extended speech -- unless it is scripted.

Your seven year old is sweet, and it might be chiasmus, but it's hardly what we're talking about in the Book of Mormon.  And of course you see it in mathematical proofs, because such proofs require trains of logic where statements must follow other statements in logical order, and must eventually come back to the quod erat demonstrandum. This is not truly comparable to literary chiasmus, at least in my humble opinion.

I invite you to consider the extended chiasmus in Alma 36:1–30.  I shan't try to illustrate it here, but go HERE for the illustration. Go down the page until you reach the relevant diagram, and study it for a few minutes. And then I want you to try to convince me that Joseph Smith composed this in his head and casually spoke it out to the scribe while he had his head planted in his hat.

The mere presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is perhaps not noteworthy, but that a 25 year old farm boy with a 4th grade education could come up with stuff like this on the fly should compel anyone to pause and seriously consider what the heck was going on.  Making casual hand-waving about how common it is to come up conversational chiasmi in order to explain Alma 36:1-30 borders on the ridiculous.

There is a signal being sent here. The signal that God sent to the world was this question: "Could a young, inexperienced and uneducated back-country lump like Joseph Smith come up with the literary masterpiece (for such it is) that is the Book of Mormon without Me, God, being behind him every step of the way?"  Some people would prefer Joseph to be just a common garden-variety natural literary genius of the highest order rather than admit that God might have had anything to do with it.

 

 

 

Regardless of what one believes of the Book of Mormon, chiasmus is still common in speech. That's what I said. 

Surely faith need not hinge on a magic trick.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't follow.  How do the qualifiers change the substance of what he said?

Let's say the question is "how do we explain the similarities between phrases in the Book of Mormon and early modern English?"

I propose 4 possibilities. The similarities:

1. Could be coincidence;
2. Book of Mormon scribes could have been given a prophetic glimpse of Early Modern English phrases;
3. Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have had access to early modern English Bibles and imitated the language;
4. The Book of Mormon could be viewed as a restoration of an ancient text, which made use of an Early Modern English translation.

I choose none of the above because I have no horse in this race, but simply lay out the possibilities that I feel explain the presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon.

After offering the four possibilities above, it would not be accurate to claim that I have presented to you a theory that the Book of Mormon lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity, along with a theory that Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is pretty far afield of the topic of this thread.  Perhaps you should go ahead and start another thread?

Fair enough, I think we've gone full circle here.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Regardless of what one believes of the Book of Mormon, chiasmus is still common in speech. That's what I said. 

Surely faith need not hinge on a magic trick.

I think the chiastic structure found in Alma 36 is difficult to wave off as merely being indicative of something that is "common in speech."  Would you agree?

These comments by John Welch are illuminating:

Quote

It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic or a more effective use of chiasmus than this. Alma 36 is worthy in form to the best of any ancient chiastic writer. Two further points deserve particular attention: first, as if to remove any doubt concerning the fact that this chiastic arrangement was intended to accentuate the contrast between the agony and the joy which Alma had experienced, he makes that contrast explicit in verse 20 when he states: "My soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain." Second, it says much for Alma's artistic sensitivities that he succeeds in placing the turning point of his life at the turning point of this chapter. Such effects, it would appear, do not occur without design. As natural as it might seem to use chiasmus as a literary device in contrasting opposites such as those Alma had experienced or in emphasizing the turning point of one's conversion, its usage is not at all obvious or automatic, as is evidenced by the fact that Alma did not use it when he described his conversion as a young man {in Mosiah 27}. Such a use of chiasmus is, rather, a conscious creation of an imaginative and mature artist {such as Alma was by the time this was written, just prior to his passing}.

And here (from Book of Mormon Central) :

Quote

The discovery of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is one of the most significant scholarly contributions to understanding and appreciating the Nephite record. John W. Welch discovered the presence of chiasmus on August 16, 1967 while on his mission in Germany, a steady stream of publications since that time has thrown much light on this matter.
...
Understanding the use of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon can benefit readers in many ways. First, chiasmus in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that the text is orderly, complex, rich, and aesthetically pleasing. “The presence of chiasmus in the English text of the Book of Mormon supplies significant evidence that the book is more beautiful than people had previously thought.” It deserves to be paid attention to for its literary qualities in addition to the doctrinal significance.

I think this deserves some attention from those who would prefer to disregard chiastic writing in the Book of Mormon as a lucky guess or just happenstance.

Quote

Likewise, chiasms in the Book of Mormon show the training, care, diligence, and authorial intent of the writers. They focus readers’ attention on specific narrative and doctrinal points of emphasis in skillful and fulfilling ways. They provide evidence “that these texts were purposefully written to center on certain key ideas and turning points.” They help attentive readers to follow the structure and interrelatedness of carefully developed passages.

Sophistication in writing contravenes most of the naturalistc explanations for the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon also provides a glimpse into Nephite society and culture, and it reveals close affinities with ancient Israelite and Maya poetic and authorial methods. “There can be no question that chiasmus was used heavily in ancient Israelite writing at and around the time of Lehi,” Welch explained. Chiasmus may thus be seen as evidence for the Book of Mormon’s antiquity. After all, “if the Book of Mormon did not contain chiasmus, one would undoubtedly count this against the book as a glaring deficiency.” The fact that so many deftly rendered chiasms are found in the Book of Mormon, therefore, corroborates the book’s claim of Israelite and ancient American origins.

The presence of chiastic writing points toward ancient Hebrew origins.  This is not definitive, of course, but it's a pretty solid indicator.

Quote

Several studies have shown it is highly unlikely that chiasmus appears in the Book of Mormon by chance. While all chiasms are not created equal, many Book of Mormon chiasms are highly deliberate and skillfully executed. Therefore, "As evidence of Book of Mormon authorship, the discovery of biblical-style chiasms in the Book of Mormon strongly tends to reduce the probability that Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could have written the book." Even on the unlikely chance that they had heard of chiasmus, there still remained the inordinate challenge to compose these well-constructed chiastic passages, without the use of any notes, during the rapid dictation process in the spring of 1829.

Yep.  The presence of chiasmus is not fatal to naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon, but its presence makes those explanations less plausible.

Quote

As explained by Welch in his ground-breaking 1969 publication, “Since the Book of Mormon contains numerous chiasms, it thus becomes logical to consider the book a product of the ancient world and to judge its literary qualities accordingly.” Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon may, therefore, help readers more deeply appreciate the literary brilliance of the book while simultaneously increasing confidence in its authenticity as an ancient text and elevating faith in its concerted testimony of Jesus Christ, who is without doubt the central figure of this sacred record. 

I like how this article concludes with the most important consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

I don't follow.  How do the qualifiers change the substance of what he said?

Let's say the question is "how do we explain the similarities between phrases in the Book of Mormon and early modern English?"

I propose 4 possibilities. The similarities:

1. Could be coincidence;
2. Book of Mormon scribes could have been given a prophetic glimpse of Early Modern English phrases;
3. Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have had access to early modern English Bibles and imitated the language;
4. The Book of Mormon could be viewed as a restoration of an ancient text, which made use of an Early Modern English translation.

I choose none of the above because I have no horse in this race, but simply lay out the possibilities that I feel explain the presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon.

Okay.

None of these seems to contravene the position of the Church (although I'm not sure what #4 means).

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

After offering the four possibilities above, it would not be accurate to claim that I have presented to you a theory that the Book of Mormon lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity, along with a theory that Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book.

Perhaps because the four possibilities you present are not necessarily at odds with the narrative provided by Joseph Smith, and held by the Church.

Owen's article, on the other hand, is at odds with the teachings of the Church.  Characterizing the Book of Mormon as fictional not surprising, or even new.  Again, variations on the "Inspired Fiction" theory are neither new nor uncommon.  And I certainly don't begrudge Owen writing whatever he likes about the Book of Mormon.  And I should note that I appreciate his effort to be respectful, tactful, "mindful{} of the context," etc.

The problem, I think, lies with the Maxwell Institute facilitating the publication of theories that are at odds with the Church.

That Owen was civil is appreciated, but that does not address the issue raised by Hamblin.

That Gee could have been more circumspect in his rebuttal is a fair point, but that does not address the issue raised by Hamblin, either.

I want more scholarly attention paid to the Book of Mormon.  I think it gets short shrift in that way.  And perhaps Gee's "anti-Mormon" remark hampered that somewhat.  And perhaps the infighting that was playing out at the Maxwell Institute at the time of Gee's comments needed to be sorted out.  Gee wrote his review of Owen's article in 2015, a few years after the events of 2012, roughly contemporaneous with Spencer Fluhman's disconcerting remarks in 2016 about how the Institute should "{not} worry about the LDS audience" and instead "{s}peak instead to scholars, period," and a few years prior to Elder Holland's 2019 corrective instructions to the Institute pertaining to its mandate.

I hope the Maxwell Institute is sorting itself out.  I hope the good and decent people who are involved with it present, and also the good and decent people who were involved with it previously, can put aside their differences and move forward.  The Maxwell Institute will hopefully follow the counsel provided by Elder Holland.  Meanwhile, the Interpreter Foundation continues to publish.  We also have Book of Mormon Central.  And Pearl of Great Price Central.  And FAIR.  And individual scholarly endeavors (Givens, Bushman, Bradley, Gardner, etc.).  Lots of good stuff to work with.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I like how this article concludes with the most important consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

The commonness of chiastic language makes an inductive implication, specifically that the ability for many to use it with relative ease makes it more likely that some can use it very, very well with relative ease, and then, that that subset of people can use it even better than very, very well, given favourable conditions.

I'm glad for that last focus point, too, and I am in agreement that the message of Jesus Christ should be the central consideration.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The commonness of chiastic language makes an inductive implication,

As in "{a} logical relation between premises and conclusion in which it is very unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false"?

Could you walk me through that?

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

specifically that the ability for many to use it with relative ease

But Welch's point is that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries were not situated to "use it with relative ease."  And stuff like Alma 36 makes its use to be happenstance or a lucky guess.

So how is it you think stuff like Alma 36 is a result of "relative ease" by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries?

Moreover, your position requires us to brush off the extensive use of chiasmus as a lucky guess/happenstance, whereas Welch's position is that chiasmus was an ancient form of Hebrew poetry, and hence fits the Church's narrative quite well.  

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

makes it more likely that some can use it very, very well with relative ease, and then, that that subset of people can use it even better than very, very well, given favourable conditions.

I'm not following your reasoning.  

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm glad for that last focus point, too, and I am in agreement that the message of Jesus Christ should be the central consideration.

Sounds good.  I'm glad we can find common ground on some things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

A passage written with chiasmus characteristics about 19th Century Protestant Christian beliefs fits into 19th Century America infinitely better than it does into Mesoamerica circa 150 B.C.

There are lots of things written in chiasmus by people who weren't ancient Hebrews and weren't aware that it was an ancient Hebrew thing. And there are lots of things written in ancient Hebrew that are not in a chiasmus form.

Noteworthy literary characteristics of the Book of Mormon don't necessarily imply it is ancient. When you weight Alma 36 together with all of the evidence that clearly points to a modern origin, the implication of Alma 36 is that the 19th Century author had some literary skills.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Regardless of what one believes of the Book of Mormon, chiasmus is still common in speech. That's what I said. 

Surely faith need not hinge on a magic trick.

Magic trick?  That's funny.

What you say is an interesting assertion that I, for one, believe is quite bald and unsupportable.  I toy with the idea of asking you as to prove your words, that "chiasmus is still common in speech."  And what is "common" in this context? Do you find yourself speaking in chiasmic form frequently?  Casual conversations like that one found in Alma that I brought up?  Seems more than a bit far-fetched.

Chiasmus merely supports the idea that Joseph Smith didn't compose the Book of Mormon -- assuming that he, unlike yourself perhaps, didn't speechify in chiasmus on a daily basis. It is revelation that supports the divinity of the Book of Mormon, of course, but I think God provides ample grounds for consideration of the book as more than a man-made artifact. Confirmation of this is left to the individual. And if the individual has already decided, then there we are.

ETA: Actually, I'm kind of laughing to myself about all this.  God sends hundreds of prophets out over thousands of years, and they produce the Bible by means of great education and literary sophistication. The naysayers claim that it's just a clever work of literature, nothing more.  Then God sends the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, who possesses no education and no literary sophistication.  And then the naysayers say "So what?" and claim that everyone speaks in chiasmus.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

A passage written with chiasmus characteristics about 19th Century Protestant Christian beliefs fits into 19th Century America infinitely better than it does into Mesoamerica circa 150 B.C.

So what?  Nobody is saying that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon proves its divinity and ancient origins.  Well, I'm not saying it, at any rate.  It suggests that there is something there worth considering, on the other hand. 

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

There are lots of things written in chiasmus by people who weren't ancient Hebrews and weren't aware that it was an ancient Hebrew thing. And there are lots of things written in ancient Hebrew that are not in a chiasmus form.

Again, so what? I'm pretty sure this form of prose/poetry is not original with the Hebrews or Semites in general. The one thing that it is not, however, is a common literary technique of backwater farm boys in New England in the early 1800s. 

By the way, that last sentence above (bolded) is particularly weird, coming from you.  Who's asserting that ancient Hebrews wrote in chiasmus all the time?  

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Noteworthy literary characteristics of the Book of Mormon don't necessarily imply it is ancient. When you weight Alma 36 together with all of the evidence that clearly points to a modern origin, the implication of Alma 36 is that the 19th Century author had some literary skills.

Literary skills that Joseph Smith possessed in abundance, despite the fact that his wife said that he couldn't compose a properly worded letter at that time, of course.  I suppose you lean towards the theory that a young Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the book secretly, and it somehow fell into Joseph's hands, whereupon he came up with the convoluted and **** and bull story about an angel and golden plates, and that he hid Emerson's manuscript in his hat while he dictated from it?  Although the fact that Emerson was a transcendentalist kind of militates against him as an author of the work, given the work's intense Christianity.

Or are you going to stand with Meadowchik's theory that everyone commonly speaks in complex chiasmic prose?

 

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

ETA: Actually, I'm kind of laughing to myself about all this.  God sends hundreds of prophets out over thousands of years, and they produce the Bible by means of great education and literary sophistication. The naysayers claim that it's just a clever work of literature, nothing more.  Then God sends the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, who possesses no education and no literary sophistication.  And then the naysayers say "So what?" and claim that everyone speaks in chiasmus.

Ask yourself when was the first time you took chiastic structure seriously. What was the context?

 

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Or are you going to stand with Meadowchik's theory that everyone commonly speaks in complex chiasmic prose?

There's no need to misrepresent arguments.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There's no need to misrepresent arguments.

Pretty sure that's what you said. How am I misrepresenting it?

Here it is:

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

chiasmus is still common in speech. That's what I said. 

That's what you said. Sounds like everyone does it -- or if not everyone, it's something that happens a lot.  And if so, it should be detectable.  I have to say that I've not detected it. At all. YouTube is full of videos with people talking.  Can you find me any videos with inadvertant chiasmus?

And maybe I myself am no literary lion, because I wrote an entire book without using chiasmus even once.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Ask yourself when was the first time you took chiastic structure seriously. What was the context?

 

Well, I'll tell you. 

I'd never heard of it before it was brought to my attention in connection with its use in the Book of Mormon.  

So, what's your point? 

[longview]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Ask yourself when was the first time you took chiastic structure seriously. What was the context?

HISTORY.   Virtually nothing was discussed about chiasmus until the 1800s.  Many scholars over the centuries were familiar with Hebrew poetic structures, forms and parallelism, etc.  The discovery of chiastic form is VERY striking.  It is extremely unlikely for a country bumpkin like Joseph Smith to have become aware of this.  Thus adding stunning evidence to many of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon and the actual history of Hebraic people emigrating to the new world.

Personally I had NO inkling of chiasmus until I stumbled onto this video:

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/video-on-the-discovery-of-chiasmus-in-the-book-of-mormon

passport photo of John Welch when he was a missionary to Germany -

[Ryan Dahle]

23 hours ago, Analytics said:

A passage written with chiasmus characteristics about 19th Century Protestant Christian beliefs fits into 19th Century America infinitely better than it does into Mesoamerica circa 150 B.C.

There are lots of things written in chiasmus by people who weren't ancient Hebrews and weren't aware that it was an ancient Hebrew thing. And there are lots of things written in ancient Hebrew that are not in a chiasmus form.

Noteworthy literary characteristics of the Book of Mormon don't necessarily imply it is ancient. When you weight Alma 36 together with all of the evidence that clearly points to a modern origin, the implication of Alma 36 is that the 19th Century author had some literary skills.

If you have another 19th century text that you think truly compares to the Book of Mormon in regard to its degree of chiasticity (i.e. the quantity and complexity of chiastic structures) please let me know. A better test would really be to see how 19th century texts compare to the entire suite of parallelisms found in the Book of Mormon. 

I don't see anything in the Book of Mormon that clearly points to modern origin. Everything I have seen can be logically explained as an artifact of the translation process, or as something that was truly ancient to begin with and just continued as a strand of Christian theology into modern times. Besides, I suspect you are well aware that there are lots of things that seem to be authentically ancient in the text and that are difficult to explain as coming from Joseph Smith. 

Moreover, the pervasive chiastic structures in the text make a lot of sense as coming from a Mesoamerican society that intentionally preserved a Hebrew/Egyptian literary tradition. This article on the use of chiasmus in early Mesoamerican documents may be eye-opening:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/was-chiasmus-known-to-ancient-american-writers

At the end of the day, I think it is completely justifiable to see chiasmus as good evidence of the Book of Mormon's historical authenticity and miraculous translation. At the same time, the fact that this single piece of evidence (as good as it may be) doesn't definitely prove the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, especially for audiences that are committed to naturalistic assumptions or to other religious views, is probably something that we can all agree is a good thing.  

Edited February 13, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[Stargazer]

On 2/12/2020 at 3:16 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Let's say the question is "how do we explain the similarities between phrases in the Book of Mormon and early modern English?"

I propose 4 possibilities. The similarities:

1. Could be coincidence;
2. Book of Mormon scribes could have been given a prophetic glimpse of Early Modern English phrases;
3. Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have had access to early modern English Bibles and imitated the language;
4. The Book of Mormon could be viewed as a restoration of an ancient text, which made use of an Early Modern English translation.

I choose none of the above because I have no horse in this race, but simply lay out the possibilities that I feel explain the presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon.

After offering the four possibilities above, it would not be accurate to claim that I have presented to you a theory that the Book of Mormon lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity, along with a theory that Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book.

It finally occurred to me the other day that the Book of Mormon need not be a word-for-word translation of the text on the gold plates, because the Lord was the translator, and He could have provided a text in any form of English that He wanted to provide it in, including 21st century modern English, if He had wanted.  And if there were errors in the source text (as Moroni suggests in the Preface), the Lord could just as well have corrected them as He was giving them to Joseph Smith. All the gas that has been emitted about the word "adieu", for example, then goes away entirely, because whereas the Nephites would have never heard a word in modern French, maybe Nephi wrote a non-Nephite word for "goodbye" as a way of emphasizing it, and the Lord simply applied an analogous term in a non-English language to get the same effect.

Same argument applies to the Book of Abraham.

 

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

especially for audiences that are committed to naturalistic assumptions or to other religious views

People can refuse to believe things that are true.

Einstein was one of the proponents of quantum physics and a leading light in the field, but until the end of life he continued to dispute some of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, principles that are accepted universally by his scientific descendants.  Einstein was wrong.

And if one has committed oneself to the principle that the Book of Mormon is a crock, no amount of evidence will sway one to the contrary opinion. Until one is shown, of course:

"And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?" Moroni 10:27

But at that point it will be too late.