Book of Mormon Language Structure

[why_me]

So Strang was able to recognize chiasmus and then copy it into his book? You aren’t proving your case, because if Strang was able to do so, then Smith could have just as easily recognized it in the Bible and copy it into the Book of Mormon, just like he copied whole passages. So which is it?

Take a look at the strang site. It is a little crazy. And yes, he would copy certain structures from the book of mormon. But the strang site is not very convincing. Now take a look at the mormon sites that I linked. Quite in depth in their research and difficult to refute. And that makes all the difference.

Now of course, you case would be much more stronger if their were no hebraisms and chiasmus. But a bull’s eye is a bull’s eye. You still have not commented on what the experts have said.

 

[why_me]

References please for this decision on the Introduction. whether or not it was a committee, the Mormon church decided to add the word “principal”, which implies a stronger genetic contribution to the Native Americans than “among”. According to one overview of the issue, the Introduction was written by Apostle Bruce McConkie in 1981 (there was no Introduction until 1981). My copy of the Book of Mormon that I received in 2002 says “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the** principal** ancestors of the American Indians”. Today, the Book of Mormon says “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians”.

.

Go to the MAD board and start a discussion. The information was on that board a couple of years ago when the change was made. A committee okayed the introduction reluctantly. Bruce R. was on the committee. And his opinion held sway.

The introduction was written by a human being. And that makes all the difference.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Take a look at the strang site. It is a little crazy. And yes, he would copy certain structures from the book of mormon. But the strang site is not very convincing. Now take a look at the mormon sites that I linked. Quite in depth in their research and difficult to refute. And that makes all the difference.

Now of course, you case would be much more stronger if their were no hebraisms and chiasmus. But a bull’s eye is a bull’s eye. You still have not commented on what the experts have said.

It really is irrelevant what the Strang site looks like, because it is obvious, if you understand chiasmus, that it is present in their Book, whether the site has unicorns or flying dolphins or not. And do you have evidence that Strang was able to recognize and copy chiasmus from the Book of Mormon, when study of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon did not occur until it was recognized recently? That is amazing! The con-man Strang was able to recognize chiasmus in the Book of Mormon long before mainstream Mormon “scholars” were able to. Again, you are proving the point that if Strang was able to recognize chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and invent his own chiastic verses, Smith could have done the same as well with the Bible.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Go to the MAD board and start a discussion. The information was on that board a couple of years ago when the change was made. A committee okayed the introduction reluctantly. Bruce R. was on the committee. And his opinion held sway.

The introduction was written by a human being. And that makes all the difference.

If the information was on the board, then you can find it and post a link to the discussion. You made a statement and I’m calling for references.

 

[why_me]

What’s more interesting to me than Hebrew language structure is the absence of various important pieces of Hebrew culture and worship–such as explicit mention of Hebrew feasts. Language is comparatively easy to mimic.

The book of mormon is an abrigement of a larger book. The book was abridged by Mormon who thought only to include that which was necessary for salvation. Much is left out about various aspects of cultural orientation.

 

[why_me]

If the information was on the board, then you can find it and post a link to the discussion. You made a statement and I’m calling for references.

Find out for yourself. You are the one trying to sidebar the discussion. I posted what the experts have said about the hebraisms and chiasmus. You post distractions. Address the issue.

Contact Daniel Peterson on MAD. He can help you with references. I remember reading about a committee writing the introduction and a disagreement about the word principal.

 

[LutheranDK]

Exchange a few names and you have sola scriptura Protestants, ignoring the assumption of infallibility of their own interpretations.

Nego minorem.
I have never used circular reasoning, nor seen (many) non-RCs who used a line of reasoning similar to that.
I have, however, almost never seen RC reasoning that is not in some way or another, circular.

The difference with Catholics is that we have many proofs that the Church is a Divine Institution, ensouled by the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ as our High Priest, Head of the Church, Spouse, and Body, having guaranteed the Church’s transmission of essential truth through promise and prayer.

And all of those “proofs” are of a similar nature to the LDS “proofs”. Circular.

 

[Arandur]

The book of mormon is an abrigement of a larger book. The book was abridged by Mormon who thought only to include that which was necessary for salvation. Much is left out about various aspects of cultural orientation.

Something so ingrained as the feasts is not excised so easily. They were very central to the life of the people and very much a part of salvific worship of God.

Further, this idea that only what was necessary for salvation was included is very weak. The book would be, as Twain put it, a pamphlet if it were concise in any reasonable degree. It surely wouldn’t have needed all the stories of life, spread of civilization, battles, and history–all of which very much contain “aspects of cultural orientation,” and ones much less significant in the minds of Hebraic peoples than the central observances of worship. Their absence speaks more loudly than language forms does.

 

[Arandur]

Nego minorem.
I have never used circular reasoning, nor seen (many) non-RCs who used a line of reasoning similar to that.
I have, however, almost never seen RC reasoning that is not in some way or another, circular.

You want to talk of logical fallacies while (presumably) coming from sola scriptura

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Find out for yourself. You are the one trying to sidebar the discussion. I posted what the experts have said about the hebraisms and chiasmus. You post distractions. Address the issue.

Contact Daniel Peterson on MAD. He can help you with references. I remember reading about a committee writing the introduction and a disagreement about the word principal.

Excuse me, we are discussing linguistics and the Book of Mormon, and I brought up an important case of a word change that changes the meaning of an important sentence (aka part of linguistics) in the Book of Mormon. You then made a statement, and when asked to back up your own statement, you want me to do the work for you.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

According to Mormon sources, John Welch was the first person to discover chiasmus in the Book of Mormon in the late 60s. Now why me is claiming that James Strang, the founder of a rival Mormon church, was able to discover chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, then make his own chiastic verses. The whole reason for Mormons to mention chiasmus is that it WASN’T known during the 1800s, so it couldn’t have been put in the Book of Mormon! You can’t have it both ways. Was chiasmus known in the 1800s, were people aware of it in the Book of Mormon after it was published, or was it discovered by John Welch?

 

[why_me]

According to Mormon sources, John Welch was the first person to discover chiasmus in the Book of Mormon in the late 60s. Now why me is claiming that James Strang, the founder of a rival Mormon church, was able to discover chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, then make his own chiastic verses. The whole reason for Mormons to mention chiasmus is that it WASN’T known during the 1800s, so it couldn’t have been put in the Book of Mormon! You can’t have it both ways. Was chiasmus known in the 1800s, were people aware of it in the Book of Mormon after it was published, or was it discovered by John Welch?

Here I go again. James Strang had the book of mormon as an example of structure. He copied some of the structure used in the book of mormon. Also, the claim made on the Strang website is weak to be sure. Nothing more was implied by my posts about strang and chiasmus.Now JS had no such examples nor did he know what chiasmus was nor Hebraisms. And so, if he wrote the book of mormon, he hit a good luck bull’s eye.

 

[why_me]

Excuse me, we are discussing linguistics and the Book of Mormon, and I brought up an important case of a word change that changes the meaning of an important sentence (aka part of linguistics) in the Book of Mormon. You then made a statement, and when asked to back up your own statement, you want me to do the work for you.

it was not in the book of mormon. It was in the introduction to the book of mormon made in 1981. And that was the point. It was in the introduction and not in the book proper. The introduction had to pass through a committee for approval.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Here I go again. James Strang had the book of mormon as an example of structure. He copied some of the structure used in the book of mormon. Also, the claim made on the Strang website is weak to be sure. Nothing more was implied by my posts about strang and chiasmus.Now JS had no such examples nor did he know what chiasmus was nor Hebraisms. And so, if he wrote the book of mormon, he hit a good luck bull’s eye.

So James Strang knew what chiasmus was, and was able to detect it in the Book of Mormon? This is what I am asking. If it was so, then Mormon writers should not claim that John Welch discovered the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, and that it was unknown during the 1800s. Mormons keep on claiming that the structure was unknown, but now you’re claiming that Strang was able to know what it was, find it in the Book of Mormon, and make new examples.

By the way, Smith had the KJV Bible, which has chiasmus.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

it was not in the book of mormon. It was in the introduction to the book of mormon made in 1981. And that was the point. It was in the introduction and not in the book proper. The introduction had to pass through a committee for approval.

Call for References. I’m sure it could be true, I just want to see evidence for your claim.

Obviously the Introduction is not part of the text that Smith “translated”, nor are the testimonies and brief explanation. It’s still in the “Book of Mormon” book. This change of word (and of course there are many other insertions and changes of words in the Book of Mormon) changes the meaning of the sentence, or at least the implied strength of what the sentence is claiming.

 

[LDSGuy]

how much of the Book of Mormon do critics think is copied from the KJV of the Bible, and how many of the examples Hebraisms are found within that? Has anyone studied this?

 

[Arandur]

Your point being? That doesn’t make it something uniquely Hebraic, not by a long shot.
…
Is this really an appropriate question when you’re trying to convince us of the authenticity of the writings under consideration? After all, if chiasmus as a literary device existed as far back as the Hebrew Bible, why does it matter when scholars started researching it? The important thing to you is that it’s there, right?
…
No, I’m saying that the presence of chiasmus is not proof of anything, or even particularly interesting.

Here’s a link to some comments on chiasmi from someone who appears to be a linguist (didn’t look into the site that deeply).
drmardy.com/chiasmus/definition.shtml
drmardy.com/chiasmus/definition/definition2.shtml

Interesting: drmardy.com/chiasmus/definition/definition1.shtml

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms by Chris Baldick provides a more extensive description:

chiasmus [ky-AZ-mus] (plural -mi), a figure of speech by which the order of the terms in the first of two parallel clauses is reversed in the second. This may involve a repetition of the same words (“Pleasure’s a sin, and sometimes sin’s a pleasure” —Byron) or just a reversed parallel between two corresponding pairs of ideas … . The figure is especially common in 18th century English poetry, but is also found in prose of all periods. It is named after the Greek letter chi (x), indicating a “criss-cross” arrangement of terms. Adjective: chiastic.

Seems chiasmi are quite common throughout history and popular well before Smith (1700s). All that would be needed to explain chiastic occurrence in the BoM would be that Smith liked that kind of (contemporary) poetry. That he found it in religious texts would just add to the appeal. So I agree that the chiastic occurrences in the BoM aren’t terribly surprising and are rather uninteresting as “evidence” of an ancient origin. If chiasmi had disappeared from the world after Hebrew times (requiring that the Bible disappear as well), it would be rather more impressive.

I checked the references at the bottom and when I saw that none of them were from academically-sound Linguistics publications, I decided to save myself the trouble. The Ensign is not exactly an LSA publication…

A quick Internet search reveals that the vast majority of sites talking about chiastic phenomena are Mormon. Few others seem to think it is particularly interesting. Pretty soon, Mormons may have an obsessive monopoly on chiasm–we may all end up having to pay them a penny any time we use the word

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Actually, it is relevant. Mormons are claiming the Book of Mormon is based off of Hebrew, in order to show that it is the Scriptures of the Twelve Tribes is correct. But since the book’s claim about Native Americans is incorrect, than its authenticity comes into question, which in turn brings into question how it came about, which includes the claim that the book is based off of Hebrew.

And the reverse is true too. Mormons claim the Book of Mormon was in reformed Egyptian, which is based off of Hebrew. But since there is no such thing as reformed Egyptian, than the book’s authenticity comes into question, which in turn brings into question how it came about, which includes the claim that it is the Scriptures of the Twelve Tribes.

So yes, the DNA story and the Hebrew tongue story are both connected.

No Eucharisted, they really aren’t.

Please reread the original post to understand the very specific topic of this thread. If you’d like to discuss Book of Mormon genetics then by all means resurrect one of the thousands we have archived or begin a new one.

Please don’t litter this thread with irrelevant tangents which broaden the scope to an incomprehensible level. This happens with every single thread on Mormonism (regardless of the specific topic) and it would be nice to just have one thread stay on topic for at least the first 10 pages. If you bring in genetics then what’s to stop the next person from bringing up the Endowment and the next from bringing up Freemasonry, and the next from bringing up that big pink elephant called “the Great Apostasy”?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Here is the rub. The strang site was not that convincing. But since Strang joined the mormon church and was familiar with the book of mormon it is not uncommon to copy certain aspects of it. And that is what he did. He was proven false and his witnesses recanted and said that it was all a fraud.

Now we are dealing with two things: hebraisms and chiasmus. And both are a bulls eye for the book of mormon. JS could not have known it. And so the question remains: how did it come about in the book of mormon?

Wait a minute. Earlier you said that chiasmi wasn’t known by your typical 19th century American, and now you’re claiming that Strang (your typical 19th century American) recognized chiasmi in the Book of Mormon and deliberately copied them?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

True. However can your niece come up with the extended chiasmus seen in Alma 36 for example?

Now let’s not be purposefully obtuse. I used my niece in a more simplistic analogy. She’s five years old, of course she cannot come up with such prose on her own.

I’ve seen chiasmi in rap songs, and I’d put money on those uneducated rappers not knowing what chiasmi are. The point is, one need not actually understand the scholastic implications or the inner workings of a convention, task, or talent in order to perform it.

Have you ever witnessed a savant play the piano? I’ve had the privilege of watching three, all of whom brought tears my eyes. What was more surprising was that not a single one knew how to sight read, they all played by ear. I wouldn’t be so quick to invoke divine revelation as the cause.

It seems very odd that Joseph Smith would be able to recognize a structure that is found in the Bible (among other places) and be able to use it in many places throughout the Book of Mormon. None of the theories of Book of Mormon origin account for this (and others), as they really only touch on the plot, and not the writing.

It’s already been pointed out that chiasmi exist in not only the Bible but in other English works. Elizabethan English is filled with it. Ever read any works by Shakespeare?

So there are hypotheses as to where Joseph Smith could have gotten the intuition to use chiasmi, including the Divine Revelation hypothesis. Due to the grandiosity of said hypothesis, I think a great deal of evidence will be necessary to demonstrate that it’s more likely than the more parsimonious hypotheses.