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

[Ryan Dahle]

I might just add that I think the impulse for critics to perform a take down of Alma 36 is really irrelevant in my view. Shorter chiastic structures may not be statistically unlikely to have occurred by random chance, but in some ways they are more persuasive to many people. For example, how many of us think the following sayings are accidentally chiastic:

1. Those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
2. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
3. Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
4. Many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

I'm guessing most people would assume these statements are highly likely to be intentional, even though they aren't statistically significant (on purely statistical grounds they could very easily occur by chance). Trying to assail the merits of Alma 36 or simply bringing up isolated chiastic passages in other works doesn't really affect the argument that the Book of Mormon's overall degree of chiasticity is unique for its time period. It has dozens of very good proposals that don't face the challenges that Alma 36 does as a semi-macro structure (for the record, I still think Alma 36 is a remarkable chiasm). 

If Meadowchick or anyone else really wants to push back against chiasmus as evidence, then I think they really need to be looking at the larger argument and find a 19th century text that is truly comparable in its overall degree of chiasticity and that similarly makes use of other parallel structures. Otherwise, this is just rehashing old arguments. 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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  And submission to that authority can be limited or withdrawn by the individual at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.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

I'm not sure I understand why you cannot understand. Does the LDS church claim "to speak as God's mouthpiece to the children of men, to act in His name with His power and authority" or not?  

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

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)

Fair enough. That one is pretty easy to look at. The complete verse is in the post. No words are omitted.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not sure I understand why you cannot understand. Does the LDS church claim "to speak as God's mouthpiece to the children of men, to act in His name with His power and authority" or not?  

Yes, it claims that.  How this "claim" works out to actual authority that is "enormous" is what I don't get.

If a person claims authority over me, but if I choose to not recognize that authority, and if that person can't do anything about that non-recognition, then I think it's unreasonable to say that this person's claimed authority over me even exists at all, let alone characterize the claimed authority as "enormous."

The autonomy and self-deterimination of the individual in the Church is what can be described as "enormous."  I grew up in the Church, and have voluntarily submitted myself to its authority.  But I can change my mind about that at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.  And if I do, the Church can do nothing about that, except put constraints on, or terminate, my membership.  That's it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I might just add that I think the impulse for critics to perform a take down of Alma 36 is really irrelevant in my view. Shorter chiastic structures may not be statistically unlikely to have occurred by random chance, but in some ways they are more persuasive to many people. For example, how many of us think the following sayings are accidentally chiastic:

1. Those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
2. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
3. Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
4. Many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

I'm guessing most people would assume these statements are highly likely to be intentional, even though they aren't statistically significant (on purely statistical grounds they could very easily occur by chance). Trying to assail the merits of Alma 36 or simply bringing up isolated chiastic passages in other works doesn't really affect the argument that the Book of Mormon's overall degree of chiasticity is unique for its time period. It has dozens of very good proposals that don't face the challenges that Alma 36 does as a semi-macro structure (for the record, I still think Alma 36 is a remarkable chiasm). 

If Meadowchick or anyone else really wants to push back against chiasmus as evidence, then I think they really need to be looking at the larger argument and find a 19th century text that is truly comparable in its overall degree of chiasticity and that similarly makes use of other parallel structures. Otherwise, this is just rehashing old arguments. 

 

 

I think that when people understand language better, the nature of Alma 36 being perhaps like a chiasmus is not very remarkable. 

BTW, to me, the most compelling things about the Book of Mormon were never novel tricks. The most valuable were actually principle and insight that taught the messages of Jesus Christ, making my life better. I'm thankful that my dad chooses to focus on the message of Christ's words in the Book of Mormon and not "tricks" one might use to leverage the belief of credible people. That's the kind of direction that even now still impacts me positively as an unbeliever. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it claims that.  How this "claim" works out to actual authority that is "enormous" is what I don't get.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Operating a system to which people voluntarily abdicate their authority is a big deal. Also, operating in a system where people believe that the authority is powerful and real when it is not is also a very big deal.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Ryan Dahle]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

BTW, to me, the most compelling things about the Book of Mormon were never novel tricks. The most valuable were actually principle and insight that taught the messages of Jesus Christ, making my life better. I'm thankful that my dad chooses to focus on the message of Christ's words in the Book of Mormon and not "tricks" one might use to leverage the belief of credible people. That's the kind of direction that even now still impacts me positively as an unbeliever.

You seem to be implying that, unlike your helpful father, those you are communicating with on this board are unhelpfully trying to leverage your belief by pointing to "novel tricks" in the Book of Mormon. Is that about right?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Operating a system to which people voluntarily abdicate their authority is a big deal.

And can voluntarily limit or undo such submission to authority, at any time, for any reason or no reason.  And that "authority" can't do bupkis.  Moreover, the "authority" in question has placed significant constraints on what it can do to affect the life of the individual (D&C 134:10).  Which is to day, it can do virtually nothing except limit or end the individual's membership.

So it seems quite overwrought to call this "enormous" authority.  

Quote

Also, operating in a system where people believe that the authority is powerful and real when it is not is also a very big deal.

"When it is not" being the operative phrase.  That's a question of faith, not an empirically testable statement of fact.

We're all grown-ups here.  Nobody held a gun to your head when you were a member.  You freely left the Church when you wanted to.  And you are currently free to disparage and rail against the Church to your heart's content.  And you can do these things without a scintilla of fear or apprehension at what the Church could do in response (which, as we all know, is nothing).  This state of affairs is so precisely because the Church does not have the sort of "enormous" authority you are falsely attributing to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

 

Also...

A YE SHALL not CLOTHE YOURSELVES

B AFTER THE MANNER of the follies of other men;

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

A' SHALL YE CLOTHE YOURSELVES.

And from Rajah Manchou's brass plates...

A My people ARE NO MORE.

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

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

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

D' I have IN THE BURIAL served them,

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

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

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

[smac97]

Okay.  We've all had a lot to say about chiasmus.  We're very far afield from the topic of this thread, which is horses in the Book of Mormon.

Let's get back on topic, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/19/2020 at 12:19 PM, Meadowchik said:

I think that when people understand language better, the nature of Alma 36 being perhaps like a chiasmus is not very remarkable. 

BTW, to me, the most compelling things about the Book of Mormon were never novel tricks. The most valuable were actually principle and insight that taught the messages of Jesus Christ, making my life better. I'm thankful that my dad chooses to focus on the message of Christ's words in the Book of Mormon and not "tricks" one might use to leverage the belief of credible people. That's the kind of direction that even now still impacts me positively as an unbeliever. 

I think you mean to say “credulous people.” 
Credible and credulous do not have the same meaning. The latter makes sense in your context; the former does not. 
 

My observation is that those who employ what you call “tricks” pertaining to the Book of Mormon are endeavoring not to prove it, but rather, to fend off attacks from detractors. Even defenders — including those you claim use tricks — will acknowledge that the real proof of the Book of Mormon is in the spiritual impact it has in the heart of the individual. 

[Stargazer]

Nevermind.  I'm right, of course, but I'm being too confrontational about it. So, I shall forbear commenting on this.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

Has anyone seen this, is it for real? 

 

[Calm]

Those artifacts look in great shape.  Audio is bad for me.

[Calm]

If it is the one I am thinking of, the guy talking has since said he thinks it is a hoax. Will try and find it in case I am confusing it with another claim. 

[Calm]

The part that shows the plates doesn’t match the audio at all, unlike other parts. I wonder if parts of the video are real and other parts substituted. There appears to have been a find in Panama in 2011 that looks similar, but having problem loading the article   You might search “Golden Chiefs of Panama”

watching more of it, it is obviously splicing the video of the plates and maybe the story of Marcos Montezuma (as I could find nothing about him save for what appears to be hoaxes) into what appears to be authentic video of actual sites, etc.  

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

The part that shows the plates doesn’t match the audio at all, unlike other parts. I wonder if parts of the video are real and other parts substituted. There appears to have been a fine in Panama in 2011 that looks similar, but having problem loading the article   You might search “Golden Chiefs of Panama”

Thanks Calm!