Jump to content

Richard Bushman - BOM “reshaped by inspiration”


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

OK, there it is. I might have fat-fingered something, but I could have sworn I just clicked on the link. 

Thanks!

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Bible and Book of Mormon come to us at the hands of human authors and scribes.  A human Moroni writes his section of the BofM, just as his father edited the bulk of the whole book.,  Not an angelic committee of scribes or God Himself.  Jewish scribes copied and transmitted the Bible, as did Christian monks.  Not angelic monastics.  I just don't see why we need special pleading for an EModE BofM.  Why would we need an angelic committee to do that?  Why is Joseph Smith Jr even necessary.  Why not simply deliver the finished angelic product to Martin Harris and have it published by E. B. Grandin.  Why is there this need to eliminate the human element?  Is precedent meaningless?

Precedent isn't meaningless, of course, and I see what you're saying. It approaches an argument from an Occam's Razor standpoint, so I can appreciate that.

But just as Occam's Razor is a reasonable approximation for likelihoods, the simplest explanation is likely the true one, but it is not constrained to be, in the economy of God I am sure He is not constrained to always do things in a specific way. 

Like Frank Sinatra claimed in song, He does it His way: "And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever." (2 Ne 29:9)

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Many years ago I read a story, and I don't remember when or where, pertaining to genealogical research which I must assume is true (because I have no reason to doubt it). There was a man in Utah back in the late 1800s or early 1900s, if I remember correctly, and he was trying to assemble family information to take to the temple. Unfortunately there was one branch that he had been trying to research for years, and hadn't found anything. And back in those days getting to places to do genealogical research took a lot of effort -- although this could be short-circuited if you could communicate via mail with people living in one's target region. Well, one day he was home when two men showed up at his door, asked for him by name, and said they had been asked to give him a parcel, which they then handed to him. He invited them into his house, but they declined, and so off they went and he closed the door. Intrigued, he took the parcel to his desk and opened it, finding that it was a copy of a newspaper from a certain city back east. He was bemused by this, since he had never ordered any such thing, but then noticed the date of the paper. It was just a couple of days old.  Back then, there was no way for a newspaper to find its way over a thousand miles from its origin in just a few days -- this normally took a couple of weeks. He rushed to his front door to try to catch the men, but they were nowhere in sight -- but they should have been, as there was no concealment available to be reached in the time after he had closed the door.

He went back to his desk and went through the paper to see what was in there, and happened to find a full-page article written by a man who had been intrigued by a certain family cemetery he had happened upon. This man had taken it upon himself to record the names and dates and other information on all the tombstones in the cemetery and presented this information in the article.  And, as you might imagine, it happened that these people turned out to be from that branch of the man's family that he had despaired of finding anything about.  Accordingly, he added the information to his records and had their temple work done.

John the Revelator and the Three Nephites are out there. Perhaps these two unknown visitors were of that company.

Very interesting story. I like stories like this. We have a story similar to this in my family that has been passed down over the years, always with the understanding that it will be kept in the family.

Link to comment

Given the extensive work of Donald Parry and others on poetic parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, it seems to me that it would be fairly easy

to identify an author or authors in the Early Modern English period who had knowledge of and used them as extensively as they are in the English

translation of the Book of Mormon. Any suggestions?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Given the extensive work of Donald Parry and others on poetic parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, it seems to me that it would be fairly easy

to identify an author or authors in the Early Modern English period who had knowledge of and used them as extensively as they are in the English

translation of the Book of Mormon. Any suggestions?

I have spent some time trying to track evidence of chiasmus in pre-1829 English literature (I haven't looked at other parallelisms). What I found was that simple chiastic structures (A B B A) were known and utilized occasionally (and sometimes more frequently) by some authors. Ring forms and macro chiasms were also somewhat present, but those are quite a bit different than most of the instances of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. What I couldn't find evidence of was pervasive use of the type of mid-length multi-layered chiasms which are so prevalent in the Book of Mormon. The most chiastic English author I am aware of is Shakespeare. 

Here are some sources (discussed in the end notes in Book of Mormon Evidence: Chiasmus) to look at:

  • Richard Copley, The Formal Center in Literature: Explorations from Poe to the Present (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2018).
  • Mark J. Bruhn, “William Wordsworth: The Prelude (1798, 1799, 1805, 1850),” in Handbook of British Romanticism, ed. Ralf Haekel (Boston, MA: De Gruyter, 2017), 399–402.
  • Dunya Muhammad Miqdad I’jam and Zahraa Adnan Fadhil, “Chiasmus as a Stylistic Device in Donne’s and Vaughan’s Poetry,” Journal of Education and Practice 7, no. 26 (2016): 43–52.
  • Jeffrey Bilbro, “The Form of the Cross: Milton’s Chiastic Soteriology,” Milton Quarterly 47, no. 3 (2013): 127–148.
  • William E. Engel, Chiastic Designs in English Literature from Sidney to Shakespeare (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2009).
  • William E. Engel, “John Milton’s Recourse to Old English: A Case Study in Renaissance Lexicography,” LATCH 1 (2008): 19–20.
  • James E. Ryan, Shakespeare’s Symmetries: The Mirrored Structure of Action in the Plays (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2016).
  • William L. Davis, “Structural Secrets: Shakespeare’s Complex Chiasmus,” Style 39, no. 3 (2005): 237–258.
  • Richard Kopley, “Chiasmus in Walden,” The New England Quarterly 77, no. 1 (2004): 115–121.
  • William L. Davis, “Better a Witty Fool than a Foolish Wit: the Art of Shakespeare’s Chiasmus,” Text and Performance Quarterly 23, no. 4 (2003): 311–330.
  • Ira Clark, “‘Measure for Measure’: Chiasmus, Justice, and Mercy,” Style 35, no. 4 (2001): 659–680.
  • Sanford Bu****, “Chiasmus and the Making of Literary Tradition: The Case of Wordsworth and ‘The Days of Dryden and Pope’,” ELH 60, no. 4 (1993): 961–987.
  • Keith G. Thomas, “Jane Austen and the Romantic Lyric: Persuasion and Coleridge’s Conversation Poems,” ELH 54, no. 4 (1987): 893–924;

The summary from Evidence Central further discusses these sources and this issue in endnotes 14-20. 

Link to comment

I appreciate all the effort devoted to chiasmus which is a beautiful and oft used literary form.

But I wonder about it's usefulness in an apologetic context. It can be found in all cultures.

I used to do a lot of public speaking in seminars, selling financial planning to folks who were likely to need it. I remember being trained in seminar speaking techniques which helped to make a memorable, suscinct and clear presentation. Every training session beat into our heads the same proven principle:

1. Tell them what you are going to tell them

2. Tell them

3. Tell them what you told them.

It's a great presentation technique!

I don't know who invented it, but it just seems like common sense to me.

It was repeated many times over.

I just don't know that any particular culture used it exclusively, or how useful that makes it in apologetics, though it is a great way to make a point.

Now check this post for chiasmus.

:)

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 2/11/2021 at 9:31 AM, mfbukowski said:

I appreciate all the effort devoted to chiasmus which is a beautiful and oft used literary form.

But I wonder about it's usefulness in an apologetic context. It can be found in all cultures.

I used to do a lot of public speaking in seminars, selling financial planning to folks who were likely to need it. I remember being trained in seminar speaking techniques which helped to make a memorable, suscinct and clear presentation. Every training session beat into our heads the same proven principle:

1. Tell them what you are going to tell them

2. Tell them

3. Tell them what you told them.

It's a great presentation technique!

I don't know who invented it, but it just seems like common sense to me.

It was repeated many times over.

I just don't know that any particular culture used it exclusively, or how useful that makes it in apologetics, though it is a great way to make a point.

Now check this post for chiasmus.

:)

 

 

There is so much more than chiasmus. Have you checked out Donald Parry’s work? My favorite BoM edition by far.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/61/

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
On 2/14/2021 at 7:14 AM, Bernard Gui said:

There is so much more than chiasmus. Have you checked out Donald Parry’s work? My favorite BoM edition by far.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/61/

Wow! That's amazing!

I notice that it has the imprimatur of the Maxwell Institute, and perhaps it was available in print form in the past. It seems to be not the case now. Seems like they ought to make these materials available in print-on-demand form. Oh well.

At least I can put the PDF version on my tablet and pretend its a Kindle book.

Link to comment
On 2/13/2021 at 11:14 PM, Bernard Gui said:

There is so much more than chiasmus. Have you checked out Donald Parry’s work? My favorite BoM edition by far.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/61/

Hey thanks,  Somehow I missed this post. Also I missed the book! Thanks for pointing it out I will check it out.

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

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