Book of Mormon and chiasmus

Voxton · Jun 30, 2005

(Note to moderators: I'm not sure exactly what forum would be suitable for this thread. I initially made it in the forum where I found the original thread, but realized it was a "No debate" forum. This is a debate are, but there are just a few forum, none of which seemed to quite be geared towards this type of debate. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate forum, if there is one.)

In this thread, a fascinating claim is made about how The Book of Mormon's use of chiasmus is somehow an indication that it was divinely inspired.

(Chiasmus BTW, refers to a way of structuring a sentence with a crisscross reference, along the lines of "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" to "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.")

dan said:
Chiasmus is an ancient literary form that was almost exclusive to Semitic peoples and is found throughout the Bible. Joseph Smith had no way of knowing about Chiasmus, and yet the Book of Mormon has numerous examples of it in its many varied forms. Cool, huh?

Maybe I'm missing something here, so I'd like an answer to two questions:

1) How would the use of chiasmus be an indication of veracity of the Book of Mormon?

2) Why would Joseph Smith have no way of knowing about chiasmus, if it was used throughout the Bible? He most certainly had access to the Bible. (Whether he had physical access to original scriptures, or the knowledge of ancient languages is irrelevant, seeing that the chiasmus format is evident in modern English texts as well -- "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" -- Genesis 9:6.)

Alexander Pope and Samuel Johnson are both enormous literary influences that predate Smith, and were well known to make use of such phrases.

And just as significantly, the use of chiasmus was certainly not limited to Semitic texts: "In peace sons bury their fathers, but in war fathers bury their sons." -- Croesus, 6 BCE.

The only argument I've seen about chiasmus and Joseph Smith, is that it was beyond his abilities, and therefore, he must have had divine help to write it. This is a downright ludicrous claim, considering everyone from Mae West to Kermit the Frog made use of it...

dan · Jun 30, 2005

1) Chiasmus was not a well known literary tool in his time, especially among uneducated farmers. There was no widespread recognition of Chiasmus as a literary form (in scholarly circles mind you) until well after Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. There is no chance whatsoever that Joseph Smith knew what Chiasmus was. Joseph Smith was a teenager with a third grade education, not a linguist.

2) Scholars hadn't isolated Chiasmus in the Bible until after Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. He was certainly not privy to the goings on of the upper echelon of scriptural research as a teenaged farmer.

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is far greater than a phrase. Entire chapters of the Book of Mormon are written in Chiasmus. Your one line quotes fall well short of the extent to which Chiasmus is present in the Book of Mormon. It is used in varied forms, another anomaly that Joseph Smith could not have produced.

I said it was an almost exclusively semitic form, not entirely exclusive. I'm aware of its use in Greek literature; I am a student of Greek.

You say that brilliant and famous writers used this form in its most basic form, and then you say that, because of that, it's entirely possible that a kid from a farm could have written an entire book, lacing it throughout with sublimely intricate examples of Chiasmus. You really think he wrote all that Chiasmus?

Where are these Mae West and Kermit quotes, anyway?

Ceridwen018 · Jun 30, 2005

The way I see it, Joseph Smith most certainly could have written in Chiasmus. First of all, it is incorrect to say that "There is no chance he could know what it was." Certainly he had no name for it, but Smith had a Bible, and thus was exposed to the Chiasmus in it.

In writing the Book of Mormon, it is understandable that he would have tried to make the book sound and flow like the Bible, much like a modern writer might try to copy the styles of different periods in their own books. Thus, though he did not know what it was, Joseph Smith copied the Chiasmus form because he found it in the Bible.

Next, the large amount of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon could be explained as overkill on Smith's part, and the varied forms could be the work of incomplete understanding of the Chiasmus style, not necessarily brilliance.

dan · Jun 30, 2005

Ceridwen018 said:
The way I see it, Joseph Smith most certainly could have written in Chiasmus. First of all, it is incorrect to say that "There is no chance he could know what it was." Certainly he had no name for it, but Smith had a Bible, and thus was exposed to the Chiasmus in it.

In writing the Book of Mormon, it is understandable that he would have tried to make the book sound and flow like the Bible, much like a modern writer might try to copy the styles of different periods in their own books. Thus, though he did not know what it was, Joseph Smith copied the Chiasmus form because he found it in the Bible.

Next, the large amount of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon could be explained as overkill on Smith's part, and the varied forms could be the work of incomplete understanding of the Chiasmus style, not necessarily brilliance.

Theories that are laughable in scholarly circles. You don't understand the complexities of Chiasmus, and your anachronical viewpoint is not letting you see just how impossible this was for someone of his age, upbringing and education.

tnutz · Jun 30, 2005

"Next, the large amount of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon could be explained as overkill on Smith's part, and the varied forms could be the work of incomplete understanding of the Chiasmus style, not necessarily brilliance." - Ceridwen018

The Original writings of the prophets contained just as much Chiasmus as the Book of Mormon, but through all the language changes and translating, I'm sure a lot of it has been lost.

Voxton · Jun 30, 2005

Theories that are laughable in scholarly circles -- what scholarly circles? Do you have any examples of scholars laughing at this? Or do you just mean Mormon scholars?

Whatever might be said of Joseph Smith, he most certainly read his bible -- and seeing that the bible contained said format, he was undeniably exposed to it.

How sad is this, that someone would attempt to validate their holy scriptures, by saying, "Our prophet was far too much of a bonehead to be able to write this stuff, so obviously he was helped by God!" When a resourceful man rises above his circumstances, is that proof of divine intervention? Benjamin Franklin wasn't particularly well educated. Neither was Einstein.

Kermit's was an implied chiasmus: "Time's fun when you're having flies," whereas Mae West had a couple, both implied and the broad sense chiasmus: "A hard man is good to find," "It is better to be looked over than overlooked," and "It's not the men in my life that count, it's the life in my men."

Katzpur · Jun 30, 2005

SInce Voxton, Ceridwen and tnutz have all casually dismissed the instance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, but have provided no compelling reasons for doing so, I thought I'd just throw in my two cents worth.

First, it has been mentioned that the "large amount of Chiamus" in the Book of Mormon is nothing more than evidence of "overkill." I'd like to ask the three of you how many instances of chiasm would qualify as "overkill." Do you have any idea at all how many instances there actually are in the book? While there are enough, in my opinion, to be impressive, there are certainly not enough to qualify as "overkill." Furthermore, they are limited to certain books which were written by different authors. Had Joseph Smith himself actually authored the book, he would likely have interspersed chaisms throughout his work.

Voxton's examples of chiasmus are extremely simple ones. Those found in the Book of Mormon are, by comparison, intricate and sophisticated. It would be virtually impossible for someone to inadvertantly craft such complex verses. We can probably dismiss that possibility without any debate whatsoever. The only possibility which remains is that Joseph, as Voxton suggested, sat down with his Bible and, using it as an example, began to construct a number of chiasms (not really knowing what they were, but somehow being able to recognize them as significant nevertheless). How likely is that to have happened? Well, ask yourself whether you would have picked up on the examples of chiasmus that occur in the Bible without knowing where they were or even that they existed at all. They don't exactly jump out at you, which is why the vast, vast majority of 19th century religious scholars were entirely unaware of them. It was only in the mid-20th century that they came to be commonly known.

Finally, even if chiasmus had been understood back in 1830 and Joseph had painstakingly composed the elaborate examples of this structural form, he and his followers would surely have pointed out its existence as evidence of authenticity. On the contrary, no one (LDS or otherwise) was aware of the chiasms in the Book of Mormon until the late 1960s, when LDS scholar John Welch, searching specifically for them, discovered them.

Reject the Book of Mormon for other reasons, if you wish, but don't try to pretend that the evidence of chiasmus in it is anything less than extraordinary.

dan · Jun 30, 2005

I concur.

dan · Jun 30, 2005

Voxton said:
How sad is this, that someone would attempt to validate their holy scriptures, by saying, "Our prophet was far too much of a bonehead to be able to write this stuff, so obviously he was helped by God!" When a resourceful man rises above his circumstances, is that proof of divine intervention? Benjamin Franklin wasn't particularly well educated. Neither was Einstein. QUOTE]

Are you saying Joseph Smith was one of the most brilliant men to have ever lived?

dan · Jun 30, 2005

Voxton said:
Theories that are laughable in scholarly circles -- what scholarly circles? Do you have any examples of scholars laughing at this? Or do you just mean Mormon scholars?

Yes, I laugh at this, but basically any scholar would laugh at the assertion that Joseph Smith discovered Chiasmus all by his lonesome and then laced an intricate novel with it as a 21 year old farm boy.

dan · Jun 30, 2005

Voxton said:
Kermit's was an implied chiasmus: "Time's fun when you're having flies," whereas Mae West had a couple, both implied and the broad sense chiasmus: "A hard man is good to find," "It is better to be looked over than overlooked," and "It's not the men in my life that count, it's the life in my men."

An implied Chiasmus? those little plays on words hardly qualify as Chiasmus, and don't try to pawn them off a conscious attempts to imitate a literary form.

Ceridwen018 · Jun 30, 2005

I'm still not convinced. Maybe its just me, but I don't see chiasmus as being the incredibly difficult and intricate thing that y'all are making it out to be. Here is an example from the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:18,19:
(a) They HUMBLE themselves
(b) and become as little CHILDREN
(c) believing that salvation is in the ATONING BLOOD OF CHRIST;
(d) for the NATURAL MAN
(e) is an enemy of GOD
(f) and HAS BEEN from the fall of Adam
(f') and WILL BE forever and ever
(e') unless he yieldeth to the HOLY SPIRIT
(d') and putteth off the NATURAL MAN
(c') and becometh a saint through the ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
(b') and becometh as a CHILD
(a') submissive, meek and HUMBLE. There is a distinct symmetrical pattern. I don't see how someone as familiar with the Bible as Joseph Smith was could have missed such a pattern, especially if this sort of thing occurred numerous times throughout the Bible.

Next, I don't see how something like this would be so hard to reproduce--the hardest part would have been isolating the pattern in the first place. I would go as far as to say that I could probably come up with one off the top of my head. The example I provided wasn't even a clever play on words--its simply a matter of relevently mentioning the same term twice and in a symmetrical order.

michel · Jul 1, 2005

tnutz said:
"Next, the large amount of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon could be explained as overkill on Smith's part, and the varied forms could be the work of incomplete understanding of the Chiasmus style, not necessarily brilliance." - Ceridwen018

The Original writings of the prophets contained just as much Chiasmus as the Book of Mormon, but through all the language changes and translating, I'm sure a lot of it has been lost.

Hi tnutz; Namaste.

I notice that this is your first pot on the forum, and thought that I 'd to welcone you.

You might like to have a look at :- Articles for New Members ; from there, there is a link to the forum rules, which you ought to see.

Enjoy!

Voxton · Jul 1, 2005

dan said:
Are you saying Joseph Smith was one of the most brilliant men to have ever lived?

If you truly want to engage in this debate in good faith, being facetious isn't the way to go. If you want to take it this way, I might say, fine -- Joseph Smith was a brilliant conman (he was after all, convicted of felony fraud) and a 19th century Jim Jones/David Koresh. But I don't want to take it that way -- so I won't.

Okay, good faith. You know perfectly well that I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it isn't unusual for men or women to rise above their circumstances, and achieve far greater things, than what would be expected of them. Joseph Smith most certainly did this (but in my opinion, not in a good way). Einstein and Franklin did it on a far greater scale (and in my opinion, in a very good way) -- I just mentioned those two stellar examples, to show that their achievements far eclipsed Joseph Smith, without anyone claiming that they were divinely inspired.

dan said:
Yes, I laugh at this, but basically any scholar would laugh at the assertion that Joseph Smith discovered Chiasmus all by his lonesome and then laced an intricate novel with it as a 21 year old farm boy.

That you might laugh at this is of no interest to me. Please provide some references, as to what "scholar" might do so. This is a lowbrow, pompous statement. What scholars have commented on this?

What is it about chiasmus that is so extraordinary? The only reason why Mormons are so obsessed with it is because Joseph Smith used it. There are a near infinite ways of making languages sing, and chiasmus is -- comparably speaking -- a primitive one.

Rappers use alliteration. So did the Vikings. Is there a connection there? You reckon Ludacris studied the Edda -- no hang on, let me rephrase that... If a modern US rapper lived in a society where Odinism was the common religion, and everyone kept a copy of the poetic and younger Edda on their bed stand, and he turned out an album that used alliteration -- could you claim that he discovered alliteration all by his lonesome? Because it's all over the Edda...

And chiasmus is all over the bible...

Katzpur said:
It would be virtually impossible for someone to inadvertantly craft such complex verses. We can probably dismiss that possibility without any debate whatsoever. The only possibility which remains is that Joseph, as Voxton suggested, Joseph sat down with his Bible and, using it as an example, began to construct a number of chiasms (not really knowing what they were, but somehow being able to recognize them as significant nevertheless). How likely is that to have happened? Well, ask yourself whether you would have picked up on the examples of chiasmus that occur in the Bible without knowing where they were or even that they existed at all. They don't exactly jump out at you...

This is the most inane argument I've ever heard -- how could anyone write a chapter entirely in the form of chiasmus, inadvertently?! Yeah, we can dismiss that.

And yeah, that is a likely possibility, but by no means the only option.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." That one really jumps out at me.

"In peace son bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." Ditto.

Etc.

Chiasmus stands out.

And chiasmus ain't hard to write.

Voxton · Jul 1, 2005

dan said:
An implied Chiasmus? those little plays on words hardly qualify as Chiasmus, and don't try to pawn them off a conscious attempts to imitate a literary form.

Now, settle down, okay? If your aggression and assertiveness equaled your knowledge of the matter at hand, you would already know what forms chiasmus can take. And you'd know very well that implied chiasmus is one.

Examples of implied chiasmus

I'm here for an informed and educated debate. I've found some members of this forum, who have truly humbled me with their wealth of knowledge. I'm grateful that they've continued to debate me, even if I haven't always been as well versed and informed on the topic at hand as I should have been. I've learned quite a few things in the short time I've been in this forum. And I'm truly grateful of it.

Whether you want to take the same approach, I don't know. Nor do I care.

But if you are going to make wild and aggressive claims, that are completely ignorant, I have no reason to engage you in a debate. So don't make comments like that, unless you truly know what you're talking about.

I don't want to stop you from believing in your religion. Truly, I don't.

I would like to understand what you believe, and why you believe it.

If there's something about your faith that is just plain plum wrong -- like this chiasmus thing -- then I think it'd be cool if you'd like to debate it and explore it. I don't think you'll lose your faith, if you learned something about it, and how it influenced your religion. People's faith is far too strong for that.

If, by debating these things with me, you end up being an atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew or a bicyclist, I take no responsibility for -- but I don't reckon that'll happen.

It's just an exploration. But lets make it an educated one, okay?

Prima · Jul 1, 2005

I agree with what others have been saying - extraordinary literary skill is a sign of just that - extraordinary literary skill.

But on an interesting note, I don't think one can be a good prophet without good speaking or writing skills. You're not a very good prophet if people don't believe or understand a word you're saying!

dan · Jul 1, 2005

Ceridwen018 said:
Next, I don't see how something like this would be so hard to reproduce--the hardest part would have been isolating the pattern in the first place. I would go as far as to say that I could probably come up with one off the top of my head. The example I provided wasn't even a clever play on words--its simply a matter of relevently mentioning the same term twice and in a symmetrical order.

This is exactly what we're saying. Of course Chiasmus isn't hard to us, but we've been saying the whole time that it hadn't been isolated by anyone in any way connected to any part of Joseph Smith's community. Every person in the whole country who knew about Chiasmus in the Bible at that time could probably fit inside a VW bug. Joseph Smith was not one of them. Our whole argument is that this book is filled with Chiasmus and it was translated years before any human being in any way associated with Joseph Smith ever knew it existed.

And Voxton, I believe that the twelve million members of the LDS faith that are trying to better their own lives as well as the lives of those around them is a good contribution to society. And you may want to check your facts. Joseph Smith was arrested for felony fraud but never convicted. He was arrested a total of 37 times, and only convicted once (of casting out an evil spirit. That was seriously the charge, and the only time he was ever convicted. I guess the evidence was indisputable).

Here's another thing. Joseph Smith was laughed at because the Book of Mormon says the ancient Americans had written languages and built buildings and roads and things of that nature. The concensus at his time was that ancient Americans were barbarians. No respected anthropologist taught otherwise It wasn't until the next decade that a man in South America discovered that they had all these things. As time went on the picture of ancient America was repainted to look exactly how Joseph Smith depicted it. Another piece of evidence overlooked because of an anachronic viewpoint.

dan · Jul 1, 2005

Voxton said:
Now, settle down, okay? If your aggression and assertiveness equaled your knowledge of the matter at hand, you would already know what forms chiasmus can take. And you'd know very well that implied chiasmus is one.

Examples of implied chiasmus

I'm here for an informed and educated debate. I've found some members of this forum, who have truly humbled me with their wealth of knowledge. I'm grateful that they've continued to debate me, even if I haven't always been as well versed and informed on the topic at hand as I should have been. I've learned quite a few things in the short time I've been in this forum. And I'm truly grateful of it.

Whether you want to take the same approach, I don't know. Nor do I care.

But if you are going to make wild and aggressive claims, that are completely ignorant, I have no reason to engage you in a debate. So don't make comments like that, unless you truly know what you're talking about.

I don't want to stop you from believing in your religion. Truly, I don't.

I would like to understand what you believe, and why you believe it.

If there's something about your faith that is just plain plum wrong -- like this chiasmus thing -- then I think it'd be cool if you'd like to debate it and explore it. I don't think you'll lose your faith, if you learned something about it, and how it influenced your religion. People's faith is far too strong for that.

If, by debating these things with me, you end up being an atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew or a bicyclist, I take no responsibility for -- but I don't reckon that'll happen.

It's just an exploration. But lets make it an educated one, okay?

I am well informed, I just hadn't heard of implied Chiasmus before; and with good reason, the author of that article made it up. Irrespective, the different forms of Chiasmus have nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Your argument is based on a judgment call, not on facts. The question is simple: is it beyond human capacity for Joseph Smith to have included Chaismus in the Book of Mormon given the fact that neither he nor anyone within a thousand miles of him was aware of its existence?

I contend that it is, you contend that it isn't. Your evidence? Simple Chaismus created by twentieth century writers. Forgive me if I find this a bit lacking. Your other evidence? Your own opinion (formed primarily by your opinion of my religion).

My evidence? A literary feat to equal it does not exist. And my own opinion. My conclusion? Either Joseph Smith is the greatest literary master to ever live or he was a prophet of God. I find the latter to be easier to swallow.

Your rebuttal?

Katzpur · Jul 1, 2005

Voxton said:
If you want to take it this way, I might say, fine -- Joseph Smith was a brilliant conman (he was after all, convicted of felony fraud) and a 19th century Jim Jones/David Koresh. But I don't want to take it that way -- so I won't.

Voxton,

These statements are out-and-out lies. You are entitled to your opinions about him, but Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. Numerous charges were brought against him in his lifetime by his enemies, but he was never, ever found guilty of a single one. He was also not a 19th century Jim Jones/David Koresh. Nothing could possibly be much further from the truth. Unlike the moderators on some other forums, the moderators on this forum do not turn a blind eye to posts such as yours. I wouldn't press my luck if I were you.

You and Dan may continue this argument if you wish. My time is far too valuable to waste talking to you.

Kathryn

Pah · Jul 2, 2005

Although spoken and answered, the topic of Joseph Smith's "crimes" are not the topic of this thread. Any further discussion will be made in another thread. But as this is a very serious charge, complete documentation must be given - opinion and hearsay will not be acceptable.

Book of Mormon and chiasmus

Â·

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Â·

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Â·

Â·

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Uber all member