Book of Mormon Language Structure

[ThuriferAcolyte]

He copied sentence structure from the book of mormon. If any chiasmus is to be found in his work, he most likely did not know it or recognize it.

That’s a contradiction. If he copied sentence structure from the Book of Mormon, he must have realized that it was unique or “different”, i.e., he must have recognized it as chiasmus, even if he didn’t know it was called chiasmus. Which doesn’t make sense according to Mormon apologists, since many claim that this sentence structure wasn’t realized in the Book of Mormon until recently. Unless of course James Strang discovered it.

And again, by your own logic, Smith could have just as easily copied sentence structure from the Bible, ending up with chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. It’s the same thing.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

James Strang knew of the book of mormon. He was a member of the mormon church. He probably had no idea of what chiasmus was but he did copy the structure of the book of mormon and so, it would make some sense if some chiasmus was found in his work. See the point?

And do you see the point we’re all making that the same thing could be applied to Joseph Smith (and company) and the Book of Mormon?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

If we are assuming that James Strang could have noticed unique sentence structures in the Book of Mormon and employed them in his Brass Plates, then we can assume that Joseph Smith (and whoever else was involved) could have also recognized sentence structures in the Bible, and employed them in the Book of Mormon. Simple as that.

 

[Eucharisted]

If we are assuming that James Strang could have noticed unique sentence structures in the Book of Mormon and employed them in his Brass Plates, then we can assume that Joseph Smith (and whoever else was involved) could have also recognized sentence structures in the Bible, and employed them in the Book of Mormon. Simple as that.

Yeah, but Thurifer, don’t you see? Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about sentence structures! I know because the Mormon church told me and the church is, like, totally infallible and has never lied before.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Yeah, but Thurifer, don’t you see? Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about sentence structures! I know because the Mormon church told me and the church is, like, totally infallible and has never lied before.

So true. The SAME logic used to explain away the chiasmus in Strang’s document can be used to explain away chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. And of course chiasmus is found in TONS of other places as well.

So much for that.

 

[Eucharisted]

So true. The SAME logic used to explain away the chiasmus in Strang’s document can be used to explain away chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. And of course chiasmus is found in TONS of other places as well.

So much for that.

What I find absolutely amazing about false religions is that a lot of their leaders get exemptions to certain rules, as if they’re somehow special. Joseph Smith is exempted from chiasmus. Mohammed is exempted from God’s law. And Buddha is exempted from logic. False religions run so counter to reason that they actually have to create their own morals and philosophies. It’s a sad attempt to fool souls, and so many fall for it too. I guess because it sounds right, people assume its right. But the real test of whether or not something is right is if it holds up against truth and reality. For truth and reality do not bow to man; it is man who bows to them, for God is the Truth and Realtiy itself.

 

[why_me]

If we are assuming that James Strang could have noticed unique sentence structures in the Book of Mormon and employed them in his Brass Plates, then we can assume that Joseph Smith (and whoever else was involved) could have also recognized sentence structures in the Bible, and employed them in the Book of Mormon. Simple as that.

No. But Strang did notice style. Now with JS with have a problem because he was seen sticking his head in a hat to translate the book of mormon. Much more difficult to add chiasmus and hebraisms when your head is in a hat dictating line upon line, word upon word. It would be quite a feat to be sure.

Also, with the links that I posted by mormon scholars, we are dealing with more than just the bible. We are also dealing with a literary style. And yes, JS was unfamiliar with such a style. We can not have a 14 year old boy suddenly knowing the literay style of the hebrews. And he was 14 when the idea behind the book of mormon needed to be hatched since it all started when he was 14 or 15 years old.

 

[why_me]

So true. The SAME logic used to explain away the chiasmus in Strang’s document can be used to explain away chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. And of course chiasmus is found in TONS of other places as well.

So much for that.

Actually I am not at all convinced with the section that was linked is chiasmus at all. It is kinda flimsy and poorly done. But if you want to go with it, by all means do so. But the case for Strang’s book is not made by that link that was posted.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Actually I am not at all convinced with the section that was linked is chiasmus at all. It is kinda flimsy and poorly done. But if you want to go with it, by all means do so. But the case for Strang’s book is not made by that link that was posted.

The point is that chiasmus in and of itself is not proof of anything, yet Mormons seem to obsess over it as “proof”. A linguist on this forum has already given his opinion on that. Obviously others may disagree, but he gave his opinion. Mormons simply cannot have it both ways, claiming that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon was discovered recently, and claim that James Strang was aware of unique verse structures and was then able to create unique verses as well.

What do you mean that it is flimsy and poorly done? And by what academic authority do you make that claim? Either way, see above, chiasmus is clearly in Strang’s book, and you can’t have it both ways, that it was discovered recently and that Strang discerned and copied unique verse structure. Illogical.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

No. But Strang did notice style. Now with JS with have a problem because he was seen sticking his head in a hat to translate the book of mormon. Much more difficult to add chiasmus and hebraisms when your head is in a hat dictating line upon line, word upon word. It would be quite a feat to be sure.

Also, with the links that I posted by mormon scholars, we are dealing with more than just the bible. We are also dealing with a literary style. And yes, JS was unfamiliar with such a style. We can not have a 14 year old boy suddenly knowing the literay style of the hebrews. And he was 14 when the idea behind the book of mormon needed to be hatched since it all started when he was 14 or 15 years old.

See my post above. Also it’s funny that at least one example of chiasmus given by LDSGuy is copied directly from the Bible.

And again, you keep failing to realize that no one here is saying that Smith did it by himself. Please keep up with the discussion.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Before I go to bed:

Simple Synonymous Parallelism Example:
Mosiah 16:10
*
Even this mortal shall put on immortality,
and this corruption shall put on incorruption.*

in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 15:53 KJV

For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality.

Contrasting Ideas Example: 2 Nephi 9:39
*
Remember, to be carnally-minded is death,
and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal*.

in the Bible: Romans 8:6 KJV

For to be carnally minded is death;
but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Let’s not also forget that many of the Book of Mormon names are also found in the Bible, as well as in history accessible to Smith and the others that some believe may have been involved. And of course the whole passages lifted from the KJV. Yep, I’m sure there are Hebraisms in there, just like how there’s chiasmus, and probably “hebraisms” in the Brass Plates as well.

 

[why_me]

The point is that chiasmus in and of itself is not proof of anything, yet Mormons seem to obsess over it as “proof”. A linguist on this forum has already given his opinion on that. Obviously others may disagree, but he gave his opinion. Mormons simply cannot have it both ways, claiming that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon was discovered recently, and claim that James Strang was aware of unique verse structures and was then able to create unique verses as well.

What do you mean that it is flimsy and poorly done? And by what academic authority do you make that claim? Either way, see above, chiasmus is clearly in Strang’s book, and you can’t have it both ways, that it was discovered recently and that Strang discerned and copied unique verse structure. Illogical.

The point is: it exists in the book of mormon. If it didn’t you would bring it up as proof the book of mormon is not ancient. Get the picture?

 

[why_me]

Before I go to bed:

Simple Synonymous Parallelism Example:
Mosiah 16:10
*
Even this mortal shall put on immortality,
and this corruption shall put on incorruption.*

in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 15:53 KJV

For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality.

Contrasting Ideas Example: 2 Nephi 9:39
*
Remember, to be carnally-minded is death,
and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal*.

in the Bible: Romans 8:6 KJV

For to be carnally minded is death;
but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Let’s not also forget that many of the Book of Mormon names are also found in the Bible, as well as in history accessible to Smith and the others that some believe may have been involved. And of course the whole passages lifted from the KJV. Yep, I’m sure there are Hebraisms in there, just like how there’s chiasmus, and probably “hebraisms” in the Brass Plates as well.

Here is an explanation of the similarities. Mormons do have answers to most questions…

fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Bible_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

 

[zaffiroborant]

No. But Strang did notice style. Now with JS with have a problem because he was seen sticking his head in a hat to translate the book of mormon. Much more difficult to add chiasmus and hebraisms when your head is in a hat dictating line upon line, word upon word. It would be quite a feat to be sure.

Also, with the links that I posted by mormon scholars, we are dealing with more than just the bible. We are also dealing with a literary style. And yes, JS was unfamiliar with such a style.** We can not have a 14 year old boy suddenly knowing the literay style of the hebrews**. And he was 14 when the idea behind the book of mormon needed to be hatched* since it all started when he was 14 or 15 years old.**

It was years after it was first “hatched” by the 14 year old boy that the BOM was “translated” by either sticking his head in a hat or concealing himself behind a sheet.

It seems JS had plenty of time to dream the story up.

 

[Arandur]

No. But Strang did notice style. Now with JS with have a problem because he was seen sticking his head in a hat to translate the book of mormon. Much more difficult to add chiasmus and hebraisms when your head is in a hat dictating line upon line, word upon word. It would be quite a feat to be sure.

Also, with the links that I posted by mormon scholars, we are dealing with more than just the bible. We are also dealing with a literary style. And yes, JS was unfamiliar with such a style. We can not have a 14 year old boy suddenly knowing the literay style of the hebrews. And he was 14 when the idea behind the book of mormon needed to be hatched since it all started when he was 14 or 15 years old.

Smith couldn’t very well have copied the KJV if his head was in his hat the whole time, could he? Seems he was writing quite a bit outside of that message. I expect that hat bit was mostly just for show.

Of course, if he COULD have copied the KJV without taking his head out of his hat (it amazes me that people actually are gullible enough to accept such ridiculousness rather than see it as the childish absurdity it is), he would have had to be remarkably literate and intelligent. To have so thoroughly memorized the KJV as to recognize similar passages appearing one word or phrase at a time on a stone, and then dictate what it should be…well, at that point you certainly can’t claim that Smith was an ignorant illiterate incapable of manufacturing complex stories.

Oh, and then there’s the interesting matter of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Lots added (mostly in the beginning; he sort of ran out of steam later on), and supposedly it was being corrected, but the known deficiencies of the KJV he did not know about and did not correct. One of the links you posted admits that–that the KJV has flaws shown by earlier texts. I’ve seen the JST and Smith’s “correction” ignored those flaws.

Frankly, though, as fanciful and “detailed” as Smith’s accounts are, I find more moral and essential truth and more consistency and complexity in the writings of many others, such as C.S. Lewis and Tolkien (and probably with less (name removed by moderator)ut from others).

 

[Jerusha]

“Head in a hat” relates to “mad as a hatter”. Mercury fumes from the chemicals used to preserve beaver-fur felt made hatters crazy. Do some research on it.

Joseph Smith’s family was reasonably literate. It is possible that Joseph himself was an exceptional learner. He may have had problems reading and understanding what he read, but the ability to rote memorize text. He then pulled his con, using both an anoxic mercury high and memorized text.

We must remember that there are other similarities with other texts, particularly a Solomon Spalding manuscript, now destroyed, but reported by his family and friends, which can be connected to Smith & Co. through Sidney Rigdon.

As for language structure, it imitates King James English. However, the grammatical errors of the 1830 edition, beyond KJE, are backwoods American English (see next posts).

As for chiasmus, I would challenge Mormon apologists to look at other figures of speech in Aramaic, and Hebrew, and Greek texts, and relate them to the BOM in un-plaigirized sections. Chiasmus was known at the time, the others had not been analyzed.

 

[Jerusha]

“… the tender mercies of the Lord is over all …” (1 Nephi 1:20) “… and also of Adam and Eve, which was our first parents …” (1 Nephi 5:11) “Wherefore, all mankind was in a lost and in a fallen state …” (1 Nephi 10:6) “And all these things of which I have spoken, was done …” (1 Nephi 10:16) “… the mixture of thy seed, which is among thy brethren …” (1 Nephi 13:30) “… shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles …” (1 Nephi 13:40) “… there is, save it be, two churches …” (1 Nephi 14:10) “… and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists …” (1 Nephi 18:15)

“… and all things that in them is …” (2 Nephi 2:14) “… and all things are given them which is expedient …” (2 Nephi 2:27) “And great was the covenants of the Lord …” (2 Nephi 3:4) “… shall be the words which is expedient in my wisdom …” (2 Nephi 3:19) “But great is the promises of the Lord …” (2 Nephi 10:21)

“And whoredoms is an abomination before me …” (Jacob 2:28) “… the servant of the Lord of the vineyard, done according to the word of the Lord of the vineyard …” (Jacob 5:10) “… and this he done that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ.” (Jacob 7:2) “… but it all were vain …” (Jacob 7:24)

“… and wild goats, and also much horses.” (Enos v. 21)

"… according to his judgments, which is just … " (Omni v. 22)

“… have not sought gold nor silver, nor no manner of riches of you …” (Mosiah 2:12) “… there shall be no other name given, nor no other way nor means …” (Mosiah 3:17) “… and they were surrounded by the king’s guard, and was taken, and was bound, and was committed to prison.” (Mosiah 7:7) “… all this he done, for the sole purpose …” (Mosiah 7:22) “… and prophesied of many things which is to come …” (Mosiah 7:26) “… and these interpreters was doubtless prepared … (Mosiah 8:19) “… and the seats which was set apart for the high priests, which was above all the other seats …” (Mosiah 11:11) “… or any likeness of things which is in heaven above, or which is in the earth beneath, or which is in the water under the earth.” (Mosiah 13:12) “… the arms of mercy was extended towards them; for the arms of mercy was extended …” (Mosiah 16:12) “… both Alma and Helam was buried in the water …” (Mosiah 18:14) “Behold, here is the waters of Mormon …” (Mosiah 18:8) “And the priests was not to depend upon the people …” (Mosiah 18:26) “… and those that was with him.” (Mosiah 19:18) “… the Lamanites did gather themselves together for to sing …” (Mosiah 20:1) “… the afflictions of the Nephites was great …” (Mosiah 21:5) “… many of his people was desirous to be baptized …” (Mosiah 21:33) “… an army of the Lamanites were in the borders …” (Mosiah 23:25) “… they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground.” (Mosiah 23:31)“And now there was seven Churches …” (Mosiah 25:23) “… there was many of the rising generation …” (Mosiah 26:1) “… those who committed sin that was in the church …” (Mosiah 26:6) “Now the sons of Mosiah was numbered …” (Mosiah 27:8)"… and destroy the souls of much people." (Mosiah 29:7) “… and this they done throughout all the land.” (Mosiah 29:41)

 

[Jerusha]

“… inasmuch as it were possible.” (Alma 1:32) “… and this he done that he might subject them to him.” (Alma 2:10) “… they did prepare for to meet them …” (Alma 2:12) “… the Son of God, which should come for to redeem his people …” (Alma 6:8) “… I had much desire that ye was not in the state of dilemma …” (Alma 7:18) “… they was angry with me …” (Alma 9:32) “As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred …” (Alma 10:7) “And as I was a going thither …” (Alma 10:8) “… the foundation of the destruction of this people is a beginning to be laid …” (Alma 10:27) “Now the object of these Lawyers were to get gain …” (Alma 10:32) “Now it was for the sole purpose for to get gain …” (Alma 11:20) “… preparing the hearts of the children of men for to receive his word …” (Alma 13:24) “… every living soul of the Ammonihahites were destroyed …” (Alma 16:9) “… did pour out his spirit on all the face of the land, for to prepare …” (Alma 16:16) “… he met with the sons of Mosiah, a journeying towards the land …” (Alma 17:1)"… this they done that they might provide food …" (Alma 17:7)"… when they had arriven in the borders of the land …" (Alma 17:13)"… the multitude beheld that the man had fell dead …" (Alma 19:24)"… as Ammon and Lamoni was a journeying thither …" (Alma 20:8)"… there he found Muloki a preaching the word …" (Alma 21:11)"… the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla, was nearly surrounded…"(Alma 22:32) “… after their many struggles for to destroy them …” (Alma 27:1)"… went about from house to house, a begging for his food." (Alma 30:56) “And Korihor did go about from house to house, a begging food …” (Alma 30:58) “But they had fell into great errors …” (Alma 31:9)"… ye hope for things which is not seen, which are true." (Alma 32:21) “Now this he done that he might preserve their hatred …” (Alma 43:7) “… this he done that he might usurp great power over them …” (Alma 43:8) “… Behold, here is our weapons of war …” (Alma 44:8) “And thus ended the record of Alma, which was wrote upon the plates of Nephi.” (Alma 44:24) “… Moroni, on the other hand, had been a preparing the minds …” (Alma 48:7) “… for the promise of the Lord were, If they should …” (Alma 48:25) “… there was not a single soul of the Nephites which were slain.” (Alma 49:23) “… they had began to settle the affairs …” (Alma 51:12) “… had began his march towards the land …” (Alma 52:15) “And thus Moroni had obtained a possession of the city Mulek …” (Alma 52:26) “… because it were easy to guard them …” (Alma 53:5) “… I have wrote unto you somewhat concerning this war …” (Alma 54:5) “… and behold, we have took of their wine …” (Alma 55:8) “… the armies of the Lamanites are a marching towards the city …” (Alma 57:31) “… after they had took them, they caused them to enter into a covenant …” (Alma 62:16) “… the Lamanites saw that Moroni was a coming against them …” (Alma 62:31)

“And in this year there were continual rejoicing …” (Helaman 3:31) “… the church had began to dwindle …” (Helaman 4:23)"… free intercourse one with another, for to buy and to sell …" (Helaman 6:8)"… wo unto this people, because of this time which has arriven …" (Helaman 13:24)“And there were but little alteration in the affairs …” (Helaman 16:12) “… we depend upon them for to teach us the word …” (Helaman 16:21)

“… therefore I have wrote this epistle …” (3 Nephi 3:5)“But behold there was no wild beasts …” (3 Nephi 4:2)"… therefore there were no chance for the robbers to plunder …" (3 Nephi 4:2) “… in the which there were so much wickedness …” (3 Nephi 5:6) “… I have wrote them to the intent …” (3 Nephi 26:8) “Behold I were about to write them all …” (3 Nephi 26:11)

“… nor murders, nor no manner of lasciviousness …” (4 Nephi v. 16) “… neither were there Lamanites, nor no manner of Ites …” (4 Nephi v. 17)

"… there were no blood shed.” (Mormon 1:12) “… and I were forbidden that I should preach unto them …” (Mormon 1:16) “… the Lamanites a marching towards them …” (Mormon 6:7)

"… they did cast up mighty heaps of earth for to get ore … " (Ether 10:23)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here is an explanation of the similarities. Mormons do have answers to most questions…

fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Bible_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

Please tell me you aren’t taking these links seriously.

Outside of that, the quoting of NT KJV text in a supposedly pre-Columbian American artifact is not addressed.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Here is an explanation of the similarities. Mormons do have answers to most questions…

fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Bible_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

Neither of those articles address what I posted, which referenced 1 Corinthians and Romans. Instead, they refer to similarities between Isaiah and Malachi and the Book of Mormon. Please read before posting.

Yes, Mormons have “answers” to most questions, just like how Scientologists, Muslims, Orthodox, Catholics, etc. have “answers” to most questions. That doesn’t mean that those “answers” are correct. And of course the Mormon critics have answers to the Mormon answers.