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

[_Rumpole]

I was just wondering what the anti-mormon explanation of chiasm in the Book of Mormon is? I am sure there is one I just do not know what it is or where to look to find it; could someone please enlighten me.

[_MCB]

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.

Brief response while you are waiting.

[_Rumpole]

Thank you MCB I was lead to understand Chiasm was only discovered much later, but thank you.

[_MCB]

Just did some searching. John Bengel was the first to study it. (1687-1752)

Here is an article on it from someone who apparently has no interest in Mormon-related issues. http://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/ ... _intro.htm

[_Nevo]

I was just wondering what the anti-Mormon explanation of chiasm in the Book of Mormon is? I am sure there is one I just do not know what it is or where to look to find it; could someone please enlighten me.

Here are a few of the major critical responses that are available online:

• Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26, no. 3 (1993): 162–171.
• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon?" Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 113 (1999).
• Earl Wunderli, "Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 4 (2005): 97–110.

[_Nevo]

Rigdon and Cowdery were well acquainted with it as a poetic device.

I'd be interested to see the evidence for this.

[_MCB]

This is second-hand. We will have to wait for the authorities to arrive.

[_Nevo]

This is second-hand. We will have to wait for the authorities to arrive.

My understanding is that chiasmus was virtually unknown in the United States in the 1820s (source).

[_MCB]

Not an unbiased SOURCE. I agree, Joseph Smith would not known about chiasmus. LOL

[_honorentheos]

The Tanner source Nevo linked to suggests that what MCB is referring to is the style which was known, while not yet recognized as "chiasmus".

The best response I ever heard about chiasmus was as a believing member from a former mission companion who was at BYU. We had discussed in in institute so I brought it up with him to ask his thoughts. He told me of the example given to them in one of his religion classes from a teacher who felt it was a weak argument and not one to use as proof of the Book of Mormon. The example was -

Hickory, dickory, dock
> The mouse ran up the clock
>> The clock struck one
> The mouse ran down
Hickory, dickory, dock

The form seems to be a common device outside of ancient sources. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this was not original to this teacher, either.

Along those lines, it seems most LDS thinkers do not feel very secure in hanging their hats on chiasmus. For example, also from the Tanner reference -

LDS scholar Blake Ostler, in reviewing the book, Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, commented:

Book of Mormon Authorship has made a prima facie case for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It fails, however, to respond to scholarly criticism in some crucial areas. For example, since Welch first published his study on chiasmus in 1969, it has been discovered that chiasmus also appears in the Doctrine and Covenants (see, for example, 88:34-38; 93:18-38; 132:19-26, 29-36), the Pearl of Great Price (Book of Abraham 3:16-19; 22-28), and other isolated nineteenth-century works. Thus, Welch's major premise that chiasmus is exclusively an ancient literary device is false. Indeed, the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon may be evidence of Joseph Smith's own literary style and genius. Perhaps Welch could have strengthened his premise by demonstrating that the parallel members in the Book of Mormon consist of Semitic word pairs, the basis of ancient Hebrew poetry. Without such a demonstration, both Welch's and Reynold's arguments from chiasmus are weak (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 16, No. 4, Winter, 1983, p. 143).