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

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I will do so in future. Note that I do usually attribute correctly, but your text was there in my post and it was convenient (or lazy of me) to pull it from there. I figured you would recognize your own words, but I can see that it might have been confusing. My apologies.

It's not for me directly, I certainly have no problem recognizing my words, it's exactly because misattribution generates confusion for anyone else.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Joseph Smith also produced complex chiasmus in the King Follett discourse. 

I assume you are referencing this?

Quote

Macro Outline & Introduction

A — God Himself was Once as We are Now
 B — You have got to Learn How to Be Gods Yourselves

  C — You must Begin at the Bottom 
   D — The Head God called together the Gods in Grand Council

    E — Element, no Beginning, no End
     F — Man, Self-Existent
    E’ — Spirits, no Beginning, no End

   D’ — The Greatest Responsibility in this world . . . is to Seek after our Dead
  C’ — A Man is his own Tormenter and his own Condemner 

 B’ — Your Expectations and Hopes are Far Above what Man can Conceive
A’ — God dwells in Everlasting Burnings

I'd be interested to see this chiasmus analyzed by Jack Welch.

By way of contrast, here's Alma 36:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

Quote

 C — You must Begin at the Bottom 
   D — The Head God called together the Gods in Grand Council...

   D’ — The Greatest Responsibility in this world . . . is to Seek after our Dead
  C’ — A Man is his own Tormenter and his own Condemner 

I am not seeing repetition here.

[Ryan Dahle]

On 2/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, Meadowchik said:

Joseph Smith produced chiasmus in his own religious writings, like the King Follett Discourse.

John Milton's Paradise Lost (though earlier) is said to have chiastic soteriology.

Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg address. Goerge Washington's Prayer for the Nation. Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Jane Austen's Persuasion.

I've already pointed to Shakespeare, which though centuries earlier, is still relevant because of the Biblical influence. Did you check out the link to Structural Secrets, Shakespeare's Complex Chiasmus? 

Here is its abstract:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.39.3.237?seq=1

Like I said twice now, I would like to be able to use the free download offered by Edwards and Edwards to test texts myself. I would say that a computer program, though imperfect, would be perhaps the most efficient way to detect relative similarities of detectable symmetries.

Anything from http://www.davidicchiasmus.com/ --which is where you seem to have found the chiastic proposals for the King Follet discourse, Gettysburd Address, and Washington's prayer--should be very carefully vetted. In my view, none of those proposals are at all very convincing. They are good examples of chiasmania. 

As for the significance of chiasmus in Jane Austen's Persuasion, I'm not really persuaded that her use of chiasmus is comparable to the Book of Mormon (see what I did there 😉). I'm guessing you are drawing from the following article: "Jane Austen and the Romantic Lyric: Persuasion and Coleridge's Conversation Poems." You'll notice that the chiasmus discussed throughout involves more of a broad concept of reversals rather than tight parallelisms. For instance the author compares a letters from two different characters and notes that Austen "[makes] a speech work like a writing which evokes a writing that works like a speech." In other words, there are really no chiastic structures in the letters themselves; they are only thematically or rhetorically chiastic. While I'm not necessarily disputing that idea, or even that some formal chiastic structures may be present in Austen's or Colridge's writings, the proposals simply don't compare in quantity or type with the chiasms in the Book of Mormon. 

I'm not familiar with Anna Karenina or the proposals for inverted parallelisms contained therein. If it is merely in macro structures, then it likely won't be comparable. In my experience, chiastic structures at the macro level are often interesting, and in many cases may be intentional, but are much more prone to false positives. I think 3+ layers of tight, rhetorically meaningful chiasms are often much more persuasive as intentional structures. So, as far as I'm concerned, we can pretty much throw all macro structures, including literary "ring forms", out the window if we want a meaningful comparison. (BTW, despite its length, I don't see Alma 36 as a typical macro structure; it is far more tight and condensed).

As for Shakespeare and Milton, I think we are getting closer to the Book of Mormon. Yes, I was familiar with the article on Shakespeare and had read it several years ago. Yet, as you noted, these are much earlier than Joseph Smith. Also, notice that the author of the Shakespeare article confirms my main point that by later periods awareness of chiasmus seems to have been largely lost to English writers and that "English Renaissance books on rhetoric and poetry remain silent on the subject." So, by Joseph Smith's day, there was apparently no easy way for him to have recognized this pattern. He could possibly have noticed it in the Bible or from Shakespeare or Milton, but at that time it appears there was no literature that would have pointed out its existence in these texts. And the vast majority of people don't consciously recognize chiasmus on their own. It took over 130 years for anyone to point to its presence in the Book of Mormon, despite how pervasive it is. And that was only because John W. Welch learned about it through a chance lecture he attended on biblical parallelisms. 

I would be interested to see how, overall, the Book of Mormon compares to Shakespeare and Milton. At present I don't think chiasmus in those works are sufficiently studied to make a fully comparable study. My guess is that the Book of Mormon tops them both.

Conclusion:

What we are left with is a few Renaissance authors who seem to have liberally used chiasmus (it remains to be seen, however, if their use is close to the quantity and complexity found in the Book of Mormon), but to my knowledge no 18th or 19th century authors were using it liberally. We have macro chiasms and ring forms from 18th and 19th century authors, but fairly infrequent tight chiastic structures at the passage or verse level, especially not many that go beyond 2 or 3 levels deep. We have no known literature during Joseph Smith's day that would have pointed out the use of chiasmus in the likes of Shakespeare or Milton or any other English authors. The presence of this form's use in the Bible was only beginning to be (re)discovered by biblical scholars, and the likelihood of Joseph Smith's access to their writings seems to be scant. In other words, it still seems very unlikely that Joseph Smith would have been consciously aware of chiasmus. 

As for as your recurring assumption that writers just naturally use this type of symmetry all the time, either because of their exposure to the Bible or because humans naturally seem to speak or write chiastically, it seems completely unfounded and unexpected, especially considering the disparity of its noticed presence in ancient vs. modern texts. I think you are taking general principles about language acquisition and making a precarious leap by applying them to the acquisition of chiastic patterns of writing/speaking. 

In the end, I'm still waiting on a proposal of a 19th century text that is truly and meaningfully comparable in its overall degree chiasticity with the Book of Mormon. If the only remotely comparable texts (even thought they may not actually measure up to the Book of Mormon) that can be produced come from Shakespeare and Milton, then I think Joseph Smith is in pretty unlikely company indeed. 

 

P.S. I don't think the Edwards and Edwards download is really going to help all that much (and I don't know how to access it). It merely assesses the chiasticity of literary structures that have already been identified. In other words, it doesn't "detect" structures, as in helping you find them in a text. It merely assesses their statistical likelihood of occurring by random chance. I have seen a computer program that can actually detect chiastic structures in a text, but the researchers had to reserve precious time on a supercomputer to perform their study. That research is very promising but is only preliminary at this point, and I can't really talk about how I am familiar with it. Hopefully, in the future, that type of analysis will help us determine how unique the Book of Mormon really is in its chiasticity. On the other hand, there will always be aspects of chiasticity that computers cannot assess. Any good evaluation will still require both computational and responsible human analysis. 

So, once again, if you think you have a truly comparable text, not just a few isolated examples of chiasmus, by all means present it. 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Anything from http://www.davidicchiasmus.com/ --which is where you seem to have found the chiastic proposals for the King Follet discourse, Gettysburd Address, and Washington's prayer--should be very carefully vetted. In my view, none of those proposals are at all very convincing. They are good examples of chiasmania. 

As for the significance of chiasmus in Jane Austen's Persuasion, I'm not really persuaded that her use of chiasmus is comparable to the Book of Mormon (see what I did there 😉). I'm guessing you are drawing from the following article: "Jane Austen and the Romantic Lyric: Persuasion and Coleridge's Conversation Poems." You'll notice that the chiasmus discussed throughout involves more of a broad concept of reversals rather than tight parallelisms. For instance the author compares a letters from two different characters and notes that Austen "[makes] a speech work like a writing which evokes a writing that works like a speech." In other words, there are really no chiastic structures in the letters themselves; they are only thematically or rhetorically chiastic. While I'm not necessarily disputing that idea, or even that some formal chiastic structures may be present in Austen's or Colridge's writings, the proposals simply don't compare in quantity or type with the chiasms in the Book of Mormon. 

I'm not familiar with Anna Karenina or the proposals for inverted parallelisms contained therein. If it is merely in macro structures, then it likely won't be comparable. In my experience, chiastic structures at the macro level are often interesting, and in many cases may be intentional, but are much more prone to false positives. I think 3+ layers of tight, rhetorically meaningful chiasms are often much more persuasive as intentional structures. So, as far as I'm concerned, we can pretty much throw all macro structures, including literary "ring forms", out the window if we want a meaningful comparison. (BTW, despite its length, I don't see Alma 36 as a typical macro structure; it is far more tight and condensed).

As for Shakespeare and Milton, I think we are getting closer to the Book of Mormon. Yes, I was familiar with the article on Shakespeare and had read it several years ago. Yet, as you noted, these are much earlier than Joseph Smith. Also, notice that the author of the Shakespeare article confirms my main point that by later periods awareness of chiasmus seems to have been largely lost to English writers and that "English Renaissance books on rhetoric and poetry remain silent on the subject." So, by Joseph Smith's day, there was apparently no easy way for him to have recognized this pattern. He could possibly have noticed it in the Bible or from Shakespeare or Milton, but at that time it appears there was no literature that would have pointed out its existence in these texts. And the vast majority of people don't consciously recognize chiasmus on their own. It took over 130 years for anyone to point to its presence in the Book of Mormon, despite how pervasive it is. And that was only because John W. Welch learned about it through a chance lecture he attended on biblical parallelisms. 

I would be interested to see how, overall, the Book of Mormon compares to Shakespeare and Milton. At present I don't think chiasmus in those works are sufficiently studied to make a fully comparable study. My guess is that the Book of Mormon tops them both.

Conclusion:

What we are left with is a few Renaissance authors who seem to have liberally used chiasmus (it remains to be seen, however, if their use is close to the quantity and complexity found in the Book of Mormon), but to my knowledge no 18th or 19th century authors were using it liberally. We have macro chiasms and ring forms from 18th and 19th century authors, but fairly infrequent tight chiastic structures at the passage or verse level, especially not many that go beyond 2 or 3 levels deep. We have no known literature during Joseph Smith's day that would have pointed out the use of chiasmus in the likes of Shakespeare or Milton or any other English authors. The presence of this form's use in the Bible was only beginning to be (re)discovered by biblical scholars, and the likelihood of Joseph Smith's access to their writings seems to be scant. In other words, it still seems very unlikely that Joseph Smith would have been consciously aware of chiasmus. 

As for as your recurring assumption that writers just naturally use this type of symmetry all the time, either because of their exposure to the Bible or because humans naturally seem to speak or write chiastically, it seems completely unfounded and unexpected, especially considering the disparity of its noticed presence in ancient vs. modern texts. I think you are taking general principles about language acquisition and making a precarious leap by applying them to the acquisition of chiastic patterns of writing/speaking. 

In the end, I'm still waiting on a proposal of a 19th century text that is truly and meaningfully comparable in its overall degree chiasticity with the Book of Mormon. If the only remotely comparable texts (even thought they may not actually measure up to the Book of Mormon) that can be produced come from Shakespeare and Milton, then I think Joseph Smith is in pretty unlikely company indeed. 

 

P.S. I don't think the Edwards and Edwards download is really going to help all that much. It merely assesses the chiasticity of literary structures that have already been identified. In other words, it doesn't "detect" structures, as in helping you find them in a text. It merely assesses their statistical likelihood of occurring by random chance. I have seen a computer program that can actually detect chiastic structures in a text, but the researchers had to reserve precious time on a supercomputer to perform their study. That research is very promising but is only preliminary at this point, and I can't really talk about how I am familiar with it. Hopefully, in the future, that type of analysis will help us determine how unique the Book of Mormon really is in its chiasticity. On the other hand, there will always be aspects of chiasticity that computers cannot assess. Any good evaluation will still require both computational and responsible human analysis. 

So, once again, if you think you have a truly comparable text, not just more examples of a few isolated examples of chiasmus, by all means present it. 

 

Getting down to the basics, look at Alma 36. It is essentially sixteen narrative lines which are then followed by sixteen more lines, the 17 being some inversion of the the 16th, the 18th of the 15th, and those inversions largely playing on the same word. This is not a grand literary undertaking. Sure, it's pretty neat, but appreciating the number of narrative lines, it's still quite simple:

This morning my eyes opened to blinding light

Sounds grew in my ears as I began to listen

to the contentious voices below

And the smell of burning toast

my feet stumbled down the stairs

Bathrobe tying as a call to keep the peace

Childish voices utter their complaints

And transform into Good Mornings and I love yous.

The day has begun at full speed.

Shoes, on and out the door, we fly, 

Our hands clasp and we cross and ask about the next holiday

The rain patters on our synthetic hoods

We laugh and make plans

The bell rings and the school door closes

The churning of work and hours make the day

Day makes us work as the hours churn

The school door opens and voices ring out

Homework plans are forgotten as our laughing eyes meet

the neighborhhod filled with sunshine  over us

Fileding inquiries about the next meal, our hands hold

us together in the crossing, landing safely by the way

The afternoon winding down to a slower pace

Whining and "I hate yous" interrupted by "I'm sorries"

Mother voice soothing and challenging the child hearts

To enrobe their words in loving communications

We climb up the front porch stoop

Into the aroma of baked cookies and home!

And music dad has put on above, dancing

Song washes away the stress of churning work

The night of rest and lighted home enclose the day

This is a narrative. It makes sense. Sure, it's not good writing, (it took about 20 minutes to write) but it is chiastic and not that hard to create and not really esoteric in nature. Life is cyclical, and so, often, is language when it describes it. 

Anyways, I'll leave you guys to it. I would love to learn more about linguistic detection and calculations, and I hope to have more time to do so. But I'm not at all convinced that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon represents a sign to consider it as supernatural in origin. I think it is evident enough that the natural rhetorical tools to create it were there, in addition to the suggestivity of the Bible to compound the likelihood of someone trying to mimic Biblical language through the (conscious or unconscious) use of chiastic structure.

 

[Ryan Dahle]

 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

This morning my eyes opened to blinding light

Sounds grew in my ears as I began to listen

to the contentious voices below

And the smell of burning toast

my feet stumbled down the stairs

Bathrobe tying as a call to keep the peace

Childish voices utter their complaints

And transform into Good Mornings and I love yous.

The day has begun at full speed.

Shoes, on and out the door, we fly, 

Our hands clasp and we cross and ask about the next holiday

The rain patters on our synthetic hoods

We laugh and make plans

The bell rings and the school door closes

The churning of work and hours make the day

Day makes us work as the hours churn

The school door opens and voices ring out

Homework plans are forgotten as our laughing eyes meet

the neighborhhod filled with sunshine  over us

Fileding inquiries about the next meal, our hands hold

us together in the crossing, landing safely by the way

The afternoon winding down to a slower pace

Whining and "I hate yous" interrupted by "I'm sorries"

Mother voice soothing and challenging the child hearts

To enrobe their words in loving communications

We climb up the front porch stoop

Into the aroma of baked cookies and home!

And music dad has put on above, dancing

Song washes away the stress of churning work

The night of rest and lighted home enclose the day

Cool chiasm. I wonder if you have any extensive, complex, or rhetorically significant chiasms in your writings that weren't intentionally chiastic or that perchance were produced before you were even exposed to the concept of chiasmus? What would really help your thesis is if you found hundreds of such chiasms in your earlier writings (assuming you have earlier writings). I mean, after all, since humans are prone to write and think symmetrically, and since I'm guessing you are somewhat familiar with the Bible, it would only be natural and expected for such chiastic structures to pervade your writings, or so your assumption goes. It would be especially helpful if the chastic structures you (consciously or unconciously) produced were embedded in a lengthy complex text that you orally dictated to scribes in approximately 60 days without notes, outlines, or reference materials. 

I'm guessing that, just to create your chiasm above, you had to have a layered outline. And I'm guessing that you probably can't produce it off the top of your head right at the moment. It would take some effort to memorize it. And, Alma 36 has a lot of other stuff going on. For instance, look at the intertextuality involved when it is compared to the other accounts of Alma's conversion:

Topic	Mosiah 27	Alma 36	Alma 38
Alma’s Sins and Iniquities	“therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities” (Mosiah 27:8)   “I have repented of my sins” (v. 24)	“Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities” (v. 13)   “so great had been my iniquities” (v. 14)   “I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins” (v. 17)   “I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.” (v. 19)	“never, until I did cry out unto the Lord Jesus Christ for mercy, did I receive a remission of my sins” (v.
Going About to Destroy the Church	“he was going about to destroy the church of God, for he did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church” (v. 10)   “they were going about rebelling against God” (v. 11)	“For I went about with the sons of Mosiah, seeking to destroy the church of God” (v. 6)
Rebellion Against God	“they were going about rebelling against God” (v. 11)	“I had rebelled against my God” (v. 13)
Alma Didn’t Keep God’s Commandments	“for he did go about … to lead astray the people of the Lord, contrary to the commandments of God” (v. 10)	“I had not kept his holy commandments” (v. 13)
God Sent His Angel	“angel of the Lord” (v. 11)   “I am sent from God” (v. 15)	“God sent his holy angel” (v. 6)	“the Lord in his great mercy sent his angel” (v. 7)
Voice of Thunder	“he spake as it were with a voice of thunder” (v. 11)   “his voice was as thunder” (v. 18)	“he spake unto us, as it were the voice of thunder” (v. 7)	“he spake with me, and his voice was as thunder”
The Earth Shook	“which caused the earth to shake upon which they stood” (v. 11)   “which shook the earth” (v. 18)   “shake the earth and cause it to tremble” (v. 18)	“the whole earth did tremble beneath our feet” (v. 7)	“and it shook the whole earth” (v. 7)
Great Astonishment and Amazement	“And so great was their astonishment” (v. 12)   “for great was their astonishment” (v. 18)   “the astonishment of Alma was so great that he became dumb” (	“I was struck with such great fear and amazement” (v. 11)
They Fell to the Earth	“they fell to the earth” (v. 12)	“and we all fell to the earth” (v. 7)
Instruction to Arise	“Nevertheless he cried again, saying: Alma, arise and stand forth” (v. 13)	“But behold, the voice said unto me: Arise. And I arose and stood up.”
Seek Not to Destroy the Church	“seek to destroy the church no more” (v. 13)	“seek no more to destroy the church of God” (9)
Remember the Captivity of Thy Fathers	“Go, and remember the captivity of thy fathers in the land of Helam, and in the land of Nephi; and remember how great things he has done for them; for they were in bondage, and he has delivered them.	“I would that ye should do as I have done, in remembering the captivity of our fathers; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them” (v. 2)   “he has delivered them out of bondage and captivity” (v. 28)   “Yea, and he has also brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem; and … delivered them out of bondage and captivity (v. 29)	“I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered” (v. 5)
If Thou Will Of Thyself	“and this even if thou wilt of thyself be cast off” (v. 16)	“If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed” (v. 9)   “If thou wilt be destroyed of thyself” (v. 11)
Alma Fell Again to the Earth	“And now Alma … fell again to the earth” (v. 18)	“And it came to pass that I fell to the earth”  (v. 10)   “I fell to the earth” (v. 11)
Three Days and Three Nights		“it was for the space of three days and three nights” (v. 10)   “And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul” (v. 16)	“I was three days and three nights in the most bitter pain” (v. 38)
Loss of Speech	“he became dumb, that he could not open his mouth” (v. 19)	“I could not open my mouth” (v. 10)
Could Not Move Hands/Limbs	“he became weak, even that he could not move his hands” (v. 19)	“neither had I the use of my limbs” (v. 10)
Limbs Received Strength	“the limbs of Alma received their strength” (v. 23)	“my limbs did receive their strength again” (v. 23)
Alma Stood and Addressed the People	“he stood up and began to speak unto them” (v. 23)	“I stood upon my feet, and did manifest unto the people (v. 23)
Born of God/Spirit	“behold I am born of the Spirit” (v. 24)   “I am born of God” (v. 28)	“I had been born of God” (v. 23)	“for if I had not been born of God I should not have known these things” (v. 6)
Others Are/Must Be Born of God	“Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God” (v. 25)	“that they might also be born of God, and be filled with the Holy Ghost” (v. 24)   “behold, many have been born of God” (v. 26)
Carnal vs. Divine Nature	“changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness” (v. 25)	“I know of myself—not of the temporal but of the spiritual, not of the carnal mind but of God” (v. 4)
Cut/Cast Off	“unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God … [and] must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off” (26–27)	“inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence” (v. 30)	“inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence” (v. 1)
Alma Pleads for Mercy	“O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me” (v. 28)	“I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me,” (v. 18)	“never, until I did cry out unto the Lord Jesus Christ for mercy, did I receive a remission of my sins” (v.
Alma Repents and Escapes Death	“Nevertheless, after wading through much tribulation, repenting nigh unto death” (v. 28)	“I cried … have mercy on me, who … am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death” (v. 18)   “God has delivered me from prison, and from bonds, and from death” (v. 27)
Bitterness	“My soul hath been redeemed from the gall of bitterness” (v. 29)	“O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness” (v. 18)   “there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains.	“I was three days and three nights in the most bitter pain” (v.
Marvelous Light	“but now I behold the marvelous light of God” (v. 29)	“what marvelous light I did behold” (v. 20)	“Behold, he is the life and the light of the world” (V. 9)
Soul Racked with Eternal Torment	“My soul was racked with eternal torment” (v. 29)	“for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul. And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment” (vv. 16–17)
Pains of Soul	“my soul is pained no more” (v. 29)	“was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul” (v. 16)   “I could remember my pains no more” (v. 19)	“I was three days and three nights in the most bitter pain and anguish of soul” (v.
Fear in God’s Presence or View	“and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye” (v. 31)	“the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror” (v. 14)
Stand to Be Judged	“Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God” (v. 31)	“Oh, thought I, … that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds.”
From This Time Forward	“And now it came to pass that Alma began from this time forward to teach the people” (v. 32)	“Yea, and from that time even until now, I have labored without ceasing, that I might bring souls unto repentance” (v. 24)
Others Learn/See What Alma Saw	“Alma began from this time forward to teach the people, … publishing to all the people the things which they had heard and seen, and preaching the word of God”	“For because of the word which he has imparted unto me, behold, many have … seen eye to eye as I have seen” (v. 26)
Tribulations	“preaching the word of God in much tribulation, being greatly persecuted by those who were unbelievers, being smitten by many of them (v. 32)	And I have been supported under trials and troubles of every kind, yea, and in all manner of afflictions” (v. 27)
Others Come to Know What Alma Knows	“for [Alma’s father] has prayed with much faith concerning thee that thou mightest be brought to the knowledge of the truth” (v. 14)   “And thus they were instruments in the hands of God in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth” (v. 36)	“but God has, by the mouth of his holy angel, made these things known unto me” (v. 5)   “therefore they do know of these things of which I have spoken, as I do know; and the knowledge which I have is of God” (v. 26)

Imagine trying to keep the details, and in many cases the specific language or wording, of the previous conversion account as well as the chiasm in one's memory at the same time. And we wouldn't want to forget Alma's verbatim, 21-word quote from a text that hadn't even been translated yet:

1 Nephi 1:8	Alma 36:22
And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.	Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and praising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there.

 All in all, I think that Alma 36 remains a literary masterpiece and that its use of chiasmus is uniquely complex and sophisticated. The fact that it was reportedly produced in a fast paced dictation--one which didn't make use of any working notes, outlines, or reference materials, and that also implemented a set of concentrated intertextual connections with Alma's other conversion account--is, imo, rather remarkable. 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Anyways, I'll leave you guys to it. I would love to learn more about linguistic detection and calculations, and I hope to have more time to do so. But I'm not at all convinced that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon represents a sign to consider it as supernatural in origin. I think it is evident enough that the natural rhetorical tools to create it were there, in addition to the suggestivity of the Bible to compound the likelihood of someone trying to mimic Biblical language through the (conscious or unconscious) use of chiastic structure.

Sounds good. I'll be waiting on that comparable 19th century text when you think you have found one. And (from our last conversation) I'm still waiting for a text that you think has a comparable degree of complexity and at the same time was produced under comparably difficult circumstances as the Book of Mormon. Good luck.  

 

Late Edit: The emojis with the glasses are unintentional, but I'll keep them for flare. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[Kevin Christensen]

A long way from horses... and chiasmus is just one Hebrew literary form.  There are many other things going on in the Book of Mormon, allusions, type scene, literary forms, ritual patterns, cultural and geographical issues, personalities, meaningful content, NDE account and after-effects, patterns of warfare, seasonality of warfare, three different calendars... )  Chiasmus also occurs in the Popul Vuh.  FARMS published on that way back when.  Allen Christenson did the work and published in non-LDS journals too.  But Interpreter recently published Noel Reynolds' most recent take: Rethinking Alma 36.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/rethinking-alma-36/

Quote

Abstract: While Alma 36 has long been one of the most admired examples of classical Hebrew chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, critiques in the last two decades have questioned whether, in fact, it really meets the requirements of classical biblical chiasms. The principal objections have pointed to the large sections of the chapter that are not easily included in the chiasm as outlined by John W. Welch and other proponents. Until now, this debate has not taken note of dramatic new developments in the analysis of Hebrew rhetoric over the last fifty years. The following essay turns to the discoveries made in this new approach to Hebrew rhetoric and shows that when the new “levels analysis” is incorporated into a study of Alma 36, the entire text does have a role to play in the extended chiastic structure of the chapter.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

All in all, I think that Alma 36 remains a literary masterpiece and that its use of chiasmus is uniquely complex and sophisticated. The fact that it was reportedly produced in a fast paced dictation--one which didn't make use of any working notes, outlines, or reference materials, and that also implemented a set of concentrated intertextual connections with Alma's other conversion account--is, imo, rather remarkable. 

Sounds good. I'll be waiting on that comparable 19th century text when you think you have found one. And (from our last conversation) I'm still waiting for a text that you think has a comparable degree of complexity and at the same time was produced under comparably difficult circumstances as the Book of Mormon. Good luck.  

 

Late Edit: The emojis with the glasses are unintentional, but I'll keep them for flare. 

Okay, cool. I'll let you know if I come up with anything more

My interest here is to hopefully bring a bit of healthy skepticism to arguments that attempt to advance enormous authority over individual lives.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

Speaking of chiasmania, it's quite possible that Welch's claims on Alma 36 could be one such example of it:

"The existence of extended chiasmus in the Book of Mormon seems far from proved by Alma 36. While the inverted parallelism developed by Welch is impressive on first reading, on closer analysis it is Welch's creativity that is most notable. By following flexible rules, he has fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements. His efforts to defend it with a "full text" chiasm and
fifteen criteria only highlight all the problems as well as his own creativity. As for Edwards's and Edwards's analysis, they acknowledge that their "quantitative judgments" are based "only on the order of words and ideas" that they themselves select. They explicitly "disregard the overall integrity and literary merit" of the chiasm, which, as shown above, has little "chiastic strength" under Welch's own criteria."  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V38N04_105.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj4neuhz9nnAhXCsHEKHQ1NAuE4FBAWMAR6BAgCEAE&usg=AOvVaw3xoivmbaAq4sLaZoS2u7-z

This is precisely the type of reason I wanted to test Edwards and Edwards algorithm, to compare the chiastic structure of different texts on their specific criteria. Of course, though, that's just their criteria and not by any means the last word on the literary device. But it could be interesting.

Earl Wunderli is the author of the above paper, but Dan Vogel also weighs in on Welch's claims of chiasmus:

"The Use and Abuse of Chiasmus in Book of Mormon Studies This paper will demonstrate that simple Hebraic-type chiasmus does not exist in the Book of Mormon except in rare instances, but that there is a natural explanation for these occurrences. This paper will also examine longer, more complex chiasms. Applying the criteria of a growing number of Bible scholars to the complex Book of Mormon chiasms proposed by John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry, I will demonstrate that the vase majority depart from what the chiasmists themselves call ‘symmetrical parallelism.” Most exhibit imbalance, asymmetry, questionable demarcation, mixed parallel styles, and arbitrary omission and inclusion of key elements. Additionally, many proposed examples ignore and disrupt more dominant literary patterns and serve no discernable literary purpose. Even if we allow for the possibility that complex chiasmus might occasionally appear in the Book of Mormon, the multitude of near-misses points to what statisticians call the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or emphasizing the successes while disregarding the failures."

 https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-use-and-abuse-of-chiasmus-in-book-of-mormon-studies/

Edited February 17, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Speaking of chiasmania, it's quite possible that Welch's claims on Alma 36 could be one such example of it:

"The existence of extended chiasmus in the Book of Mormon seems far from proved by Alma 36. While the inverted parallelism developed by Welch is impressive on first reading, on closer analysis it is Welch's creativity that is most notable. By following flexible rules, he has fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including
asymmetrical elements. His efforts to defend it with a "full text" chiasm and
fifteen criteria only highlight all the problems as well as his own creativity.
As for Edwards's and Edwards's analysis, they acknowledge that their "quantitative judgments" are based "only on the order of words and ideas" that they themselves select. They explicitly "disregard the overall integrity and literary merit" of the chiasm, which, as shown above, has little "chiastic strength" under Welch's own criteria."  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V38N04_105.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj4neuhz9nnAhXCsHEKHQ1NAuE4FBAWMAR6BAgCEAE&usg=AOvVaw3xoivmbaAq4sLaZoS2u7-z

This is precisely the type of reason I wanted to test Edwards and Edwards algorithm, to compare the chiastic structure of different texts on their specific criteria. Of course, though, that's just their criteria and not by any means the last word on the literary device. But it could be interesting.

Earl Wunderli is the author of the above paper, but Dan Vogel also weighs in on Welch's claims of chiasmus:

"The Use and Abuse of Chiasmus in Book of Mormon Studies This paper will demonstrate that simple Hebraic-type chiasmus does not exist in the Book of Mormon except in rare instances, but that there is a natural explanation for these occurrences. This paper will also examine longer, more complex chiasms. Applying the criteria of a growing number of Bible scholars to the complex Book of Mormon chiasms proposed by John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry, I will demonstrate that the vase majority depart from what the chiasmists themselves call ‘symmetrical parallelism.” Most exhibit imbalance, asymmetry, questionable demarcation, mixed parallel styles, and arbitrary omission and inclusion of key elements. Additionally, many proposed examples ignore and disrupt more dominant literary patterns and serve no discernable literary purpose. Even if we allow for the possibility that complex chiasmus might occasionally appear in the Book of Mormon, the multitude of near-misses points to what statisticians call the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or emphasizing the successes while disregarding the failures."

 https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-use-and-abuse-of-chiasmus-in-book-of-mormon-studies/

Or its possible that Wunderli and Vogel themselves didn't really understand Welch's criteria to begin with and that their critiques are invalid for a variety of reasons. The following articles only add to the problems that I have personally found in their critiques:

Boyd F. Edwards and Farrell W. Edwards, “Response to Earl Wunderli’s ‘Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm’,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (2006): 164–169.

and also this article from Noel B. Reynolds:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/journal/ 

[Ryan Dahle]

I should note, for the sake of fairness, that Wunderli did respond to the response from Edwards and Edwards.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V39N03_184.pdf

I simply find Wunderli's analysis wanting on several levels. 

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume you are referencing this?

I'd be interested to see this chiasmus analyzed by Jack Welch.

By way of contrast, here's Alma 36:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't know why you bother. It's clear that undereducated country bumpkins habitually compose complex 16-deep chiasms while having their heads buried in hats. Everyone knows this. It's a well-known phenomenon.

[Meadowchik]

On 2/17/2020 at 1:20 PM, smac97 said:

I assume you are referencing this?

I'd be interested to see this chiasmus analyzed by Jack Welch.

By way of contrast, here's Alma 36:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I saw that Mormonthink has said a few things on this topic: James Strang of the Strangites produced chiasms in his works. Also on this topic, it presents this from The Late War (1816) by Gilbert Hunt, a 21-pair chiasmus:

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I saw that Mormonthink has said a few things on this topic: James Strang of the Strangites produced chiasms in his works. Also on this topic, it presents this from The Late War (1816) by Gilbert Hunt, a 21-pair chiasmus:

Seems like an awful lot of padding to get to 21.

Benjamin McGuire addressed this back in 2015:

Quote

Quote

Late War, for example, has at least one example of complex chiasmus.

Except this isn't an example of chiasmus. Chiasmus by definition is a rhetorical figure - meaning that it is intentional and plays a role in the rhetoric of the writing. And there are some easy to use guidelines to help distinguish between a real chiasmus, and someone who is just formatting the text in a way that makes it look chiastic.

The first thing to do is to get rid of the ellipses. So, (and I am not going to do this for the entire thing from the link you provide, just some of it), we start with this list:

Now it came to pass
The 1st day of the month, the chief governor ... over the land of Columbia ...
The Great Sanhedrim of the people ...
of Columbia ...
Nevertheless ...
Great ...
The Wise Men ...
paper which James had ...

To looking like this:

1 Now it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves a free and independent nation;
2 That in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia;
3 Even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedrim of the people, who were assembled together.
4 And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers.
5 Nevertheless, the people loved him, forasmuch as he wrought their deliverance from the yoke of tyranny in times past: so they called the city Washington.
6 Now, when the written paper was received, the doors of the chambers of the Great Sanhedrim were closed, and a seal was put upon every man's mouth.
7 And the counsellors of the nation, and the wise men thereof, ordered the written paper which James had delivered unto them to be read aloud; and the interpretation thereof was in this wise:
 

And in reverse, these same parts are shown as:

paper which James had ...
the wise men ...
great ...
nevertheless ...
of columbia ...
the great sandhedrim of the people ...
the 17th day of the month ... the chief governor of the land of Columbia ...
And it came to pass ...

Chapter 2

1 Now when there was an end made of reading the paper which James had written, the Sanhedrim communed one with another touching the matter:
2 And they chose certain wise men from among them to deliberate thereon.
3 And they commanded them to go forth from their presence, for that purpose, and return again on the third day of the same month.
4 Now, when the third day arrived, at the eleventh hour of the day, they came forth and presented themselves before the Great Sanhedrim of the people.
5 And the chief of the wise men, whom they had chosen, opened his mouth and spake unto them after this manner:
6 Behold ! day and night have we meditated upon the words which James hath delivered, and we are weary withal, for in our hearts we desired peace.
7 But the wickedness of the kingdom of Great Britain, and the cruelty of the princes thereof, towards the peaceable inhabitants of the land of Columbia, may be likened unto the fierce lion, when he putteth his paw upon the innocent lamb to devour him.
8 Nevertheless, the lamb shall not be slain; for the Lord shall be his deliverer.
9 And if, peradventure, the people of Columbia go not out to battle against the king, then will the manifold wrongs committed against them be increased tenfold, and they shall be as a mock and a bye-word among all nations.
10 Moreover, the righteousness of your cause shall lead you to glory, and the pillars of your liberty shall not be shaken.
11 Therefore, say we unto you, Gird on your swords and go forth to battle against the king; even against the strong powers of Britain; and the Lord God of Hosts be with you.
12 Now when the great Sanhedrim of the people heard those things which the wise men had uttered, they pondered them in their minds many days, and weighed them well;
13 Even until the seventeenth day of the month pondered they in secret concerning the matter.
14 And it was so, that on the next day they sent forth a Decree, making WAR upon the kingdom of Great Britain, and upon the servants, and upon the slaves thereof.
15 And the Decree was signed with the  hand writing of James, the chief Governor of the land of Columbia.
16 After these things, the doors of the chambers of the Sanhedrim were opened.

Chapter 3

1 And it came to pass, ...

 

The reason why we have to get rid of the ellipses and look at the text in context is this - by separating out just the minimialist parts of the text that match up in the chiastic structure we are building, we make it look like that most important elements are in fact the elements that form the alleged chiasm. And what we see when we add all of the context back in is that the elements proposed here don't provide a framework for understanding the text. We couldn't, for example, read through just the elements listed and get some sort of sense of what the text is telling us. And many of the important elements are simply left out.

A second clue is often found in natural barriers in the narrative. In this case, we know, for example, that the book is broken into chapters, and the chapters represent deliberate breaks in the material. And yet, this proposed chiasm crosses these barriers as if they weren't there. This is a real problem. It is actually a bigger problem than that in the narrative that proponents of the Late War offer, since it is supposed to be a school textbook. So not only are we including this complex chiasm for school kids to read, but to put it into a context in this way where chapters are unlikely to be read together is even a little further off the mark. It is an odd sort of mix of arguments that just doesn't go well. At any case, there is this problem.

The third issue is a problem involving single (and relatively common) words as parallels in the structure. Perhaps the best illustration is this set of words (elements 5 and 6):

Nevertheless ...
Great ...
...
great ...
nevertheless ...

And it represents this material in the text:

Nevertheless, the people loved him, forasmuch as he wrought their deliverance from the yoke of tyranny in times past: so they called the city Washington. Now, when the written paper was received, the doors of the chambers of the Great Sanhedrim were closed, and a seal was put upon every man's mouth. And the counsellors of the nation, [ element 7 begins here] and the wise men thereof, ordered the written
...

Great Britain, and the cruelty of the princes thereof, towards the peaceable inhabitants of the land of Columbia, may be likened unto the fierce lion, when he putteth his paw upon the innocent lamb to devour him. Nevertheless, the lamb shall not be slain; for the Lord shall be his deliverer. And if, peradventure, the people ...

We can see part of the issue here - particularly in the word "Great" which is used no less than six times just in the small section I quote (covering the first 8 elements in the matched pairs). And the problem crops up here more specifically in the fact that in the first part of element 6, the word 'Great' which is offered as a marker for the chiasmus is a part of the phrase 'Great Sanhedrim', which is found in that form in element 3. By presenting these parallels without context, we can create an illusion that the words are significant when they aren't, and we can conceal the fact that they exist in naturally occurring phrasing which disagrees with the artificial phrasing we are creating in the proposed chiasm. What this means is that it would be very hard for someone reading (or listening to) the text to pick out the word "great" in element 6 as significant, especially since we have many uses of the word in larger more recognizable phrasing (the Great Sanhedrim that is used frequently in the text, and also 'Great Britain' which is chopped in half in the second half of element 6 to create a match).

On top of this, we have other phrases which cause problems. "It came to pass" is relatively common in the Hunt book. And it shows up as Element 1. What is interesting about "It came to pass" is that it functions as a temporal marker in the text (in this text, as well as in the Book of Mormon text). What this means is that it is an indicator that time is progressing in the narrative. This was an important function in Biblical Hebrew (not so much in the Hunt book), which uses this phrase (represented by a very short sequence of letters in Hebrew) to manage the time frame of a narrative. What this means is that there is an inherent role of "it came to pass" in a narrative to create narrative barriers. It comes at the beginning of a narrative unit, and never at the end of one. And so anytime we see a chiasm beginning (and ending) with this kind of phrase, we know with absolute certainty that it isn't meant to be a part of a chiasm. Because it is a temporal marker, there is always a block of text associated with it. And so the second half of element 1 is "and it came to pass" - but this cannot be connected to the material that comes before it (what we would expect with the last element in the second half of a chiasm) - it has to be connected with all of the material that follows, and which isn't a part of the chiasm. So we know that element 1 is simply an artificial and contrived sign for a chiasm.

I could go on.

It is very easy to make an argument look good by contrivance. We can do this process on any text using a computerized lexical tool (I know - I have). But it isn't a complex chiasm by any means.

This is one of the reasons why, when we start to deal with literary analysis, that people should adopt widely used criteria for this sort of thing.

Ben McGuire

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Seems like an awful lot of padding to get to 21.

Benjamin McGuire addressed this back in 2015:

Thanks,

-Smac

Except it seems to me that Alma 36 suffers from similare issues: commonly used words in Alma 36 used for Welch's thesis that appear mutliple times in the verses but are excluded to form the structure and the original chapter structure not matching the claimed chiasm. Then Welch's imbalanced pairings also illustrate a very loose definition of form.

As they say, What's good for the goose...

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Except it seems to me that Alma 36 suffers from similare issues: commonly used words in Alma 36 used for Welch's thesis that appear mutliple times in the verses but are excluded to form the structure and the original chapter structure not matching the claimed chiasm. Then Welch's imbalanced pairings also illustrate a very loose definition of form.

As they say, What's good for the goose...

I think that assessment is superficial.  From the 2015 discussion:

Quote

Quote

Do you know how complex chiasmus (like Alma 36) in the Book of Mormon measure up to these criteria? (I've often wondered this). Perhaps someone can point me to some article somewhere?

As you may know, there's an ongoing debate about the validity of the alleged chiasm(s) in Alma 36. I find Hardy's and Spencer's discussions especially valuable, but unfortunately they're not available online so I can't link to them.

• John W. Welch, “A Masterpiece: Alma 36,” in John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 114–131.
• Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 4 (2005): 97–112.
• Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "Response to Earl Wunderli’s 'Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (2006): 164–169 (longer version here).
• Earl M. Wunderli, "Response to Boyd and Farrell Edwards's Response to My 'Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (2006): 170–173 (longer version here).
• Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "When Are Chiasms Admissible as Evidence?" BYU Studies 49, no. 4 (2010): 131–154.
• Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 137–142, 304n40.
• Joseph M. Spencer, "Of Conversion," in An Other Testament: A Typology (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2012), 1–32.

And here:

Quote

Quote

Do you know how complex chiasmus (like Alma 36) in the Book of Mormon measure up to these criteria? (I've often wondered this). Perhaps someone can point me to some article somewhere?

Alma 36 is sort of in a gray area - because it is clearly complex (and longer than most) and yet it isn't necessarily on the level of a macro-chiasm (this gray area has taken on the label of "extended chiasm" in the literature that Nevo links). The notion that it is chiastic fits well into the narrative unity of the piece, but, at the same time, as with any longer piece, many of the useful issues in identification don't work well. I am personally not much of a fan of wildly labeling things as macro-chiasm (and Alma 36 may not be an example of this). But macro chiasms clearly do exist. One of the challenges that I often see - particularly in LDS Scholarship, but really in biblical scholarship more generally, is a real absence of an awareness of literary studies that tend to look at the same phenomenon in other literary fields (biblical studies is only loosely a part of literary studies). Chiasmus isn't just a Hebrew rhetorical device. A recognition of the wider context tends to diminish certain kinds of arguments about the Book of Mormon (certainly), but, if we find real chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, then it adds a complexity to the text that is somewhat difficult for critics to deal with in many of the naturalistic proposals. That is, if we don't see this kind of complexity already in the alleged sources, then it makes it harder to see them as real sources (and this is why there is sometimes a push to find chiasmus in everything - and the need for a more rigorous method).

Perhaps the most interesting recent discussions on macro chiasms that I have encountered comes from a source that I suspect very few here have ever read. Among the works of Giambattista Vico is his Liber Metaphysicus (the first volume of his De antiquissima Italorum sapientia, published in 1710). And it seems likely that the entire volume is an experiment in a ring form (a macro-chiasm). And this seems to be quite deliberate.

http://www.ispf-lab.cnr.it/2014_301.pdf

The challenges with macro chiasms (and to a lesser extent long complex chiasms like Alma 36), is that unlike their simpler counterparts, they cannot function in all of the same ways. That is, they are not helpful to a listening audience (they are too long for the audience to not only recognize it, but to go backward and re-understand the first of the match pairs in terms of the second). They are not as useful in identifying a central message to an audience who may not be able to see the larger context. That is, even in reading it, you don't understand the center of the macro-chiasm as the center until you are significantly past it (unless you analyze it structurally after the fact). And so on. Further, there is obviously the issue that they aren't necessarily as tight in terms of structure as we would like - because the structure of the chiasm itself cannot be as central to the message or to the rhetoric of the message as we get from much smaller ones. So, I tend to view these longer examples as something of a different animal, that resembles chiasmus is some ways, and doesn't in others (but that is just my personal affectation).

Having said that, there is this appreciation of these kinds of structures of going through an argument (a logical progression) in which we return to the beginning, having first laid out a sequence of issues, and then responded to them in this structure. And so I think that we can make some decisions about the intentionality of them, and their use in rhetoric in that fashion. The challenge is that our rules (as we have them) that help us identify the intentionality of shorter chiasms don't always work as well on the larger complex chiasms and particularly on a macro-scale, and so I think that eventually we will have a different process of evaluating them (there will be some overlap - for example, in a short chiasm, the repetition of key terms out of order is always a major red flag, in a macro chiasm, a cluster of key terms - or the repeated use of a single key term within a specific subsection would have an entirely different kind of connotation).

So I am somewhat on the fence with regards to Alma 36. I find the structure intriguing, and I lean towards it reflect an intentional design, but I am not yet fully convinced.

FAIR lays out the chiastic structure by quoting Alma 36 in its entirety.

In then end, I think it's really hard to attribute the chiastic structure of Alma 36 to unintentionality / happenstance / dumb luck.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I saw that Mormonthink has said a few things on this topic: James Strang of the Strangites produced chiasms in his works. Also on this topic, it presents this from The Late War (1816) by Gilbert Hunt, a 21-pair chiasmus:

I once actually went through and tried to find these supposedly parallel words and phrases in this proposed chiasm. If I recall correctly, they are literally from all over the place, and some of them I couldn't even find the matching phrases. It may have been an OCR problem, but the fact that page numbers aren't given for any of these passages or for the chiasm as a whole is more than suspicious. The rest of the research from which this proposal derives is filled with errors and misunderstandings, thus I wouldn't at all be surprised if this chiasm is as completely invalid as it appears. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I once actually went through and tried to find these supposedly parallel words and phrases in this proposed chiasm. If I recall correctly, they are literally from all over the place, and some of them I couldn't even find the matching phrases. It may have been an OCR problem, but the fact that page numbers aren't given for any of these passages or for the chiasm as a whole is more than suspicious. The rest of the research from which this proposal derives is filled with errors and misunderstandings, thus I wouldn't at all be surprised if this chiasm is as completely invalid as it appears. 

It appeared to me what they had done was started at a likely spot and then searched for comparable phrases without regard to distance from the chosen centerpiece.

I did the same as an exercise and was able to come up with better fits imo for about ten lines before I got bored.

[smac97]

On 2/17/2020 at 1:37 PM, Meadowchik said:

Okay, cool. I'll let you know if I come up with anything more

My interest here is to hopefully bring a bit of healthy skepticism to arguments that attempt to advance enormous authority over individual lives.

What "enormous authority over individual lives" do you feel the Church has?

As I see it, the "authority" is functionally very limited.  It is constrained by the extent to which the individual is willing to let the Church have and exercise authority over him/her.  If the individual doesn't want to attend church, or pay tithing, or go to the temple, or hold or fulfill a calling, or serve a mission, or do anything else relating to the Church, he has that option, and the Church can do precisely bupkis about it.  To be sure, the Church's own scripture materially limits the "authority" it has in the lives of its members:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

D&C 134:10

"Enormous authority"?  I don't think so.

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

It appeared to me what they had done was started at a likely spot and then searched for comparable phrases without regard to distance from the chosen centerpiece.

I did the same as an exercise and was able to come up with better fits imo for about ten lines before I got bored.

Take a look at the Strangite scripture. Chapter I, verse 2, verbatim: 

Quote

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: thou shalt not usurp dominion as a ruler; for the name of the Lord thy God is great and glorious above all other names: he is above all, and is the only true God; the only just and upright King over all: he alone hath the right to rule; and in his name, only he to whom he granteth it: whosoever is not chosen of him, the same is a usurper, and unholy: the Lord will not hold him guiltless, for he taketh his name in vain. (100, 367) http://www.strangite.org/Law.htm

Notice how the very center lines also represent the main idea. And there is no elimination of words or phrases required for the chiastic structure:

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "enormous authority over individual lives" do you feel the Church has?

As I see it, the "authority" is functionally very limited.  It is constrained by the extent to which the individual is willing to let the Church have and exercise authority over him/her.  If the individual doesn't want to attend church, or pay tithing, or go to the temple, or hold or fulfill a calling, or serve a mission, or do anything else relating to the Church, he has that option, and the Church can do precisely bupkis about it.  To be sure, the Church's own scripture materially limits the "authority" it has in the lives of its members:

"Enormous authority"?  I don't think so.

-Smac

Oh, just to speak as God's mouthpiece to the children of men, to act in His name with His power and authority. Just that. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Take a look at the Strangite scripture.

I was speaking specifically about the Late War.  I went looking for their parallels when it first came out.  I believe Ryan was speaking specifically towards that one as well.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was speaking specifically about the Late War.  I went looking for their parallels when it first came out.  I believe Ryan was speaking specifically towards that one as well.

Well would you like to speak specifically about this Strangite verse? (I mentioned it also in that same post.)

Edited February 19, 2020 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

What "enormous authority over individual lives" do you feel the Church has?

As I see it, the "authority" is functionally very limited.  It is constrained by the extent to which the individual is willing to let the Church have and exercise authority over him/her.  If the individual doesn't want to attend church, or pay tithing, or go to the temple, or hold or fulfill a calling, or serve a mission, or do anything else relating to the Church, he has that option, and the Church can do precisely bupkis about it.  To be sure, the Church's own scripture materially limits the "authority" it has in the lives of its members:

"Enormous authority"?  I don't think so.

Oh, just to speak as God's mouthpiece to the children of men, to act in His name with His power and authority. Just that. 

Again, I don't understand.  The authority of the civil government (federal / state / local) over the citizenry is rightly characterized as "enormous."  These governments have authority to compel behavior, to prohibit behavior, to punish, to deprive of money and property, to incarcerate, even to kill.  

The Church, on the other hand, only has as much authority as the individual chooses to cede to it.  And submission to that authority can be limited or withdrawn by the individual at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.

I admire the Pope, but he exercises no authority over me.  Similarly, Islamic imams, protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, etc. all claim some sort of authority from God, but none of which exercises any authority over me.  

I think it's odd for disaffected members and critics to materially mischaracterize the Church like this, and yet I see it all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well would you like to speak specifically about this Strangite verse? (I mentioned it also in that same post.)

Nope, haven't studied that one and not in the mood to do so at this time. (I think it important to read texts in their original context as much as possible)

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm