Jump to content

Chiasmus in the BOM


auteur55

Recommended Posts

Hello friends, I am sure this topic has been debated before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon. I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give. This may have all been debated but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Chiasmus in the BOM, How do anti-mormons explain it

Lack of golden plates and ancient Nephite artifacts accompanying the gold plates...how do the members explain it? :P

We solve the first issue, and the latter would be clear as day.

Link to comment

Chiasmus in the BOM, How do anti-mormons explain it?

Below is a link on the exmormon board for a recent discussion on chiasmus.

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ind...exmobb_recovery

Lack of golden plates and ancient Nephite artifacts accompanying the gold plates...how do the members explain it?

In other words, they can't. Notice that an LDS person cannot defend the faith on the exmo board. ExMoism is akin to Islam which is a weak and corrupt faith because it can't tolerate being in the company of other faiths.

This is not a debate board for Mormons to defend the faith. -Recovery Board Guidelines

See?

Link to comment

This board is confusing at times. I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer the question yet. I went to the link that was given and I can't find where chiasmus is discussed. Where should I look? Sometimes i can't tell who are TBM and who are against the church on these boards. It can be disconcerting.

Link to comment
This board is confusing at times. I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer the question yet. I went to the link that was given and I can't find where chiasmus is discussed. Where should I look? Sometimes i can't tell who are TBM and who are against the church on these boards. It can be disconcerting.

I know what you mean. I was confused at first too, especially when TBM's make sarcastic statements, I can't tell if they're anti or not. Then there's the antis who have avatars of the Tabernacle *coughcoughElihucoughcough*, or other pictures that might make them appear like TBM's.

Will you explain to me what chiasmus is? It's not ringing a bell for some reason.

:P

MorningStar

P.S. In case you don't know, I am a TBM.

Link to comment

Wow, all the ones on the sealed portion thread are here. imagine that. It takes thirty seconds for them to spot enough inconsistencies to dismiss the sealed portion, but anti-mormons are not justified in rejecting the BOM unless they explain every possible little detail that could potentially under some hypothetical circumstances or another, add credibility to the church's ridiculous claims.

Link to comment

I looked at the sealed portion thread this morning and read quite a bit of the website.

Link to comment

Really I'm just wondering how chiasmus, a form of writing that wasn't even discovered until the 1900's surfaced in the book of mormon. I am just curious. How the heck did it get in there? I don't want to say that it proves the book of mormon true only that if it is false, how do you account for these types of things?

Also I just got back from the the recovery board. It was my first time being exposed to such a thing and I can honestly say that I have never seen a sadder state of people in my whole life. Is it really necessary to go to a recover from mormonism meeting once a week? What do you have to recover from? doing too much home teaching? Why not just get on with your life? If you have lost your testimony and do not believe in the church then move on, why not just let it go? I find all this very strange.

Link to comment

You have quite a bit more reading to do, before you are able to rule out every single little possibility that might lend credibility to the book. Sealed Portion guys can hold you at bay for three hundred years, with exactly the same kind of naive reasoning that you mormons see yourselves giving pause to criticis of the church.

Link to comment
You have quite a bit more reading to do, before you are able to rule out every single little possibility that might lend credibility to the book. Sealed Portion guys can hold you at bay for three hundred years, with exactly the same kind of naive reasoning that you mormons see yourselves giving pause to criticis of the church.

I don't have to read every account that every single person who claims to have the sealed portion has written. God is not the author of confusion. He gave us a prophet to guide us and we know that anyone else who claims to have the sealed portion is not for real.

As for critics of the church, maybe if they weren't so silly I would take them more seriously. I know they're getting more serious, but for years, the critics I met were positively ridiculous with their accusations against the church. Plus, I know the church is true, so it doesn't matter what they say.

MorningStar

Link to comment

I am a true believing Mormon, which for me means that I not only believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon but also maintain its historicity. I do not believe that chiasmus proves anything except a propensity for repetition. If a person writes with repetitions, chiastic structures are inevitable.

I do not believe that most of the examples of chiasmus identified in the Book of Mormon occur by authorial intent. This is especially true for those that contain major chiastic interference, meaning that they conveniently skip major lines and phrases of the text in order to create the structure.

Those interested in the subject may wish to visit strangite.org where you will see the Strangite

Link to comment

Hi...

I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give.

Long before I ever heard the word, chiasmus, I had written poetry in this form. My belief is that for some it is a natural way to write.

After I discovered the issue in the BoM I did some searches on the net and discovered that one finds chiasmus ALL over the place. There are several websites devoted to chiasmus that have nothing to do with things Mormon. You may want to check it out. websites

I also think that one's writting style often reflects or incorporates styles with which one is familiar.

Just my observations...

:P

~dancer~

Link to comment

Hello, are you really telling me that there is currently a movement in the church right now that is starting to believe that the book of mormon is not historically true. doesn't this open an unending can of worms. Do these same people believe that the angel moroni gave Joseph Smith the plates? Did he not exist? I don't see how this belief doesn't undermine the whole church making smith and the all the following prophets liars.

Link to comment

auteur writes:

Hello friends, I am sure this topic has been debated before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon. I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give. This may have all been debated but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.
There are two ways to look at chiasmus. One is to view it as a structural phenomena. The other is to view it as a rhetorical device. Chiasmus viewed purely as a structure is meaningless. It can be found just about anywhere. Identifying it within a text doesn't help us understand the text, etc.

Chiasmus as a rhetorical device is something else. It is intentional. It plays a role in the text (even if that role is purely aesthetical). This kind of chiasmus is significant.

The objective is to demonstrate that a chiasmus is intentional and not coincidental. Even accomplishing that, however, does very little for claims of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Even though the name "Chiasmus" is of relatively recent origins, Chiasmus has been identified as a rhetorical device in English literature for several centuries (I can find references to it in 16th century literature). So, its use for a 19th century author can't be given particular significance.

It's value in Book of Mormon studies is less about historicity and more about the normal interpretative issues which come to the forefront when discussing chiasmus in any text. It is the value of the rhetorical device in altering interpretations of the text (hopefully towards the intent of the author) which makes it particularly useful.

Most critics are more likely to deny the existence of intentional chiasmus within the text (claiming that the chiastic structures are accidental). The other side of the response is to point out the fact that chiasmus is not exclusively an ancient rhetorical device, and thus not an indicator for historicity even if it does occur. Personally, I agree with the second argument, although I believe that there are a few instances in the Book of Mormon where chiasmus can be demonstrated as being intentional.

Ben

Link to comment
Hello, are you really telling me that there is currently a movement in the church right now that is starting to believe that the book of mormon is not historically true. doesn't this open an unending can of worms. Do these same people believe that the angel moroni gave Joseph Smith the plates? Did he not exist? I don't see how this belief doesn't undermine the whole church making smith and the all the following prophets liars.

I cannot say if this is true or not but what I do know is that the Reorganised CoJCoLDS [renamed CCoC] has many individuals [including I suspect, the 'prophet' who resigned] that subscribe to the notion of the BoM being a product of Joseph's 19th century literary skills.

To do this, they have to reject the authority of Baptism and the PH both which came about whilst Joseph was translating the plates.

Link to comment

auteur55 wrote:

Really I'm just wondering how chiasmus, a form of writing that wasn't even discovered until the 1900's surfaced in the book of mormon. I am just curious. How the heck did it get in there? I don't want to say that it proves the book of mormon true only that if it is false, how do you account for these types of things?
The word "Chiasmus" first occurs in 1871. So, what you are largely referring to is a modern definition of the word "chiasmus". But, when dealing with literary figures, a "modern" label isn't going to be able to help you determine what Joseph Smith may or may not have known about the figure itself (which would exist independantly of its label). The two earliest English references of which I am aware (which appear to refer to chiasmus) are:
Ye haue a figure which takes a couple of words to play with in a verse, and by making them to chaunge and shift one into others place they do very pretily exchange and shift the sence. (George Puttenham, 1589)

The use serueth properlie to praise, dispraise, to distinguish, but most commonly to confute by the inuersion of the sentence. (Henry Peachem, The Garden of Eloquence, 1577)

So, I would suggest that claimingthat chiasmus "wasn't even discovered until the 1900's" is an inaccuracy.

Ben

Link to comment
Hello, are you really telling me that there is currently a movement in the church right now that is starting to believe that the book of mormon is not historically true.

Yes. There are people in the Church who are believing that the Book of Mormon is not historically true, but spiritually true. They retain their membership and continue to participate to whatever degree they feel comfortable with.

doesn't this open an unending can of worms.

Many have found it to be a smaller can of worms than that which is opened by trying to believe in the historicity.

Do these same people believe that the angel moroni gave Joseph Smith the plates?

Some do, some don't. We're not very well organized, and haven't formulated an official alternate history or articles of faith. I've asked my Bishop to give a room where other similar-minded members and I can meet during Sunday School and formulate such things, and he said he would think about it.

I don't see how this belief doesn't undermine the whole church making smith and the all the following prophets liars.

Who said a Prophet can't be a "liar" and still be a Prophet?

Link to comment

"I meant what I said,

and I said what I meant.

An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent."

-Horton, the elephant, from Horton hears a Who

Hey, I like the Chiasmus from Green Eggs and Ham the best.

I am Sam

Sam I am

That Sam-I-am!

That Sam-I-am!

I do not like that Sam-I-am!

Do you like

green eggs and ham?

I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

I do not like

green eggs and ham.

Would you like them

here or there?

I would not like them

here or there.

I would not like them anywhere.

I do not like

green eggs and ham.

I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Although this to me does not speak of ancient wisdom, I could see how it would resonate with others.

I am more interested in eating the green eggs and ham.

Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto
Hello friends, I am sure this topic has been debated before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon. I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give. This may have all been debated but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.

Cheers.

Last year in our gospel doctrine class the instructor took every opportunity to point out anything that could be remotely viewed as a chiasmus. He would then explain how this was further validation of the BoM being an ancient record from the Americas.

I never really saw this as validating the historicity of the BoM. Later I found a similar book, which some claim to be as divine as the BoM, contained chiasmus structures as well.

IMHO, I really don't see why anyone would use the existence of chiasmi in any book as divine proof. Show me something UNIQUE to the BoM. Chiamus structures exist in man texts.

After the death of JS, a member by the name of James Strang broke off with a small group of followers. He claimed he had a letter from JS, which named him to be the next prophet. Later he claimed to have translated some plates which had found buried in a hillside. The name of the translated books is "The Book of The Law of The Lord"

3PlatesShad.jpg

This book has been found to contain chiami as well, yet all BoM scholars refute the divinity of this book as being translated from an "ancient" record.

Both books from two mormon based religions contain chiami. IMO, both books were written by men, and are not divine translations from ancient records.

Link to comment

auteur55 writes:

Hello friends, I am sure this topic has been debated before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon. I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give. This may have all been debated but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.

Cheers.

A Hello friends,

B I am sure this

C topic has been debated

D before but I am really curious

E as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon.

e' I don't see how they could rationally explain it away

d' and I was wondering what excuses they give.

c' This may have all been debated

b' but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.

a' Cheers.

That's how we anti's explain it.

Link to comment
Really I'm just wondering how chiasmus, a form of writing that wasn't even discovered until the 1900's surfaced in the book of mormon. I am just curious. How the heck did it get in there? I don't want to say that it proves the book of mormon true only that if it is false, how do you account for these types of things?

Also I just got back from the the recovery board. It was my first time being exposed to such a thing and I can honestly say that I have never seen a sadder state of people in my whole life. Is it really necessary to go to a recover from mormonism meeting once a week? What do you have to recover from? doing too much home teaching? Why not just get on with your life? If you have lost your testimony and do not believe in the church then move on, why not just let it go? I find all this very strange.

Chiasmus in the BOM really is not impressive to most critics. We generally feel no more compelled to explain its presence in the BOM than we do explaining its presence in works of Shakespeare, Confucius or even Solomon Spaulding.

Really I'm just wondering how chiasmus, a form of writing that wasn't even discovered until the 1900's surfaced in the book of mormon. I am just curious. How the heck did it get in there? I don't want to say that it proves the book of mormon true only that if it is false, how do you account for these types of things?

This is really not what happened. The word was defined around 1870. That is all. It was not "discovered". People were aware of the writing style and many times tried to emulate this style, hence in is seen in many modern works. The BOM is just one of them. This is as much evidence of a dependency on existing works as it is evidence of a divine origin.

sr

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...