What is the Anti explanation of Chiasm in the Book of Mormon?

[_Rumpole]

Can I presume that chiasm is the best evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Your presumptions assume too much, given the full context of the book. I would have to say that the best evidence for any historicity in the Book of Mormon would be the parallels with Clavigero and Maccabees. And possibly the Norse on Greenland timeline. Those validate the hemispheric model, in the 1000 AD to 1472 window of time. Any more questions?

Oh, by the way, do you call "anti,"anyone who is non-Mormon and chooses not to convert or revert?

I guess different things stand out to different folks, as far as evidence for the BM.

Oh as an LDS, the culture has inculcated in me to be fearful and suspecious and quick to label others as anti. I am just a regular member of a ward, and like the vast majority of Mormons I am just an average cockaspaniel. I am not sure why I use the generic lable anti as a broad label for the complex strata of folks who are not Mormon but who commentate on Mormonism.

I have picked it up from just being in the LDS community I guess, just like the next uniformed LDS I am no different. Just having a little reflection on the uninformed ignorance I displayed I guess it comes from the LDS culture which is dictated by the leadership. So yeah I guess my silly notion comes from the leaders of the church, that is supposing they are responsible for the kooky LDS culture and what not. I guess they are if they are responsible for setting the pace and direction for the church. Dunno really?

Anyhow say for example you disregard the above theory and toss it in the trash how else do you explain it?

Anyhow don't blame me, I see people pulled up for the same thing on LDS themed blogs all the time, so LDS must be getting it from somewhere? it's not our fault it is the way we are indoctrinated, and my understanding is that process starts at the very top and filters right down to the nothing insignificant member at the very bottum like myself for example. As much as I would like to say I am special and unique and different I am not I am just the same as all the rest.

I find your remark curious given that the examples of their writing we have is not as pedestrian as you imply. Cowdery was anything but an illiterate, awkward writer.

Perhaps you could explain?

I am not an expert, but I would describe Oliver Cowdery's writing style as self-conscious, effusive, and flowery; pretentious rather than sophisticated. The late Arthur Henry King, who was a stylistician, called it "journalese." In any case, I don't think Cowdery the writer had the discipline to create complex, tightly structured forms.

Next to Spalding, though, Cowdery's prose is a model of subtlety and understatement. Spalding's writing is comically bad. It's so garish that it would give the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest winners a run for their money.

Cowdery:"that earth, nor men, with the eloquence of time, cannot begin to clothe language in as interesting and sublime a manner as this holy personage" -pure genius. I remember hearing Truman Madsen talk about one English Professor at BYU who reckoned that Joseph' Smiths First Vision account was the greatest piece of prose in the english language, however I guess that statement would only have credibility if the professor was non-lds and there's the Rub*

Have you read Zanoni? by Bulwer? Cool book. Even if your not a rosicrucian you may still enjoy the book.

honorentheos: makes a good point. This came to pass business repeated ad nauseum, is a literary disaster, that cannot be ignored. Then again perhaps that is not the case if we consider the books in the BM individually rather than collectively. Dunno?

[_Dwight Frye]

I found it interesting when I learned that chiasmus is apparently present in the scriptures produced by James J. Strang: http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm

Also, it appears chiasmus appears in scripture produced by Joseph Smith that was neither ancient nor Hebraic in origin: http://www.greaterthings.com/Parallels/DC/index.html

Some of these examples are good, some look kinda forced (but in my opinion, so are some of the Book of Mormon examples). Take it for what it's worth.

(apologies if these have already been linked, I didn't click on everything in the thread to see what they were)

[_moksha]

Rigdon and Cowdery were well acquainted with it as a poetic device. Most chiasmi are brief, there are many extensive and contrived ones in the Book of Mormon.

Could it be or be it could not? That is the question.

Chiasum was discovered in a stone box or it was boxed with a bunch of stone. Best to ask the Nehor or Simon: Simon and Nehor, ask them.

[_MCB]

Could it be or be it could not? That is the question.

Chiasum was discovered in a stone box or it was boxed with a bunch of stone. Best to ask the Nehor or Simon: Simon and Nehor, ask them.

<grins>

[_moksha]

If you read my example above, you may ask yourself if God would ever utilize chiasmus. Being wise beyond measure, would it not seem like all communications would be as clear and concise as possible. Possibly even using 1024 bit code. ;-)

[Anonymous]

.

[_SoHo]

Doesn't its use demand a tight translation? Isn't that the inferior theory for defending the Book of Mormon?

[_beefcalf]

honorentheos: makes a good point. This came to pass business repeated ad nauseum, is a literary disaster, that cannot be ignored. Then again perhaps that is not the case if we consider the books in the BM individually rather than collectively. Dunno?

As a quick note... I do not wish to derail this thread, but my I suggest that the use of the abbreviation 'BM' for the Book of Mormon may be enthusiastically adopted many people here, perhaps to their amusement and your dismay.

Just sayin'

[_Gentile Persuasion]

I would have to say that the best evidence for any historicity in the Book of Mormon would be the parallels with Clavigero and Maccabees.

I don't know about Clavigero, but the KJV translation of Macabees has been kicking around since the seventeenth century. It even has the name Nephi.

[_MCB]

Yup, they had to have been familiar with Maccabees. I have been busy collecting books from google today. A very boring job. http://books.google.com/books?id=sCkOAA ... &q&f=false


Just ask the google god. I now have 61 Mormon-related titles on my computer. A lot of reading material. Some of the anti stuff is way out there. No wonder they have a persecution complex. The nasty imaginations about polygamy had to have had something to do with it.