MG, I understand as the translation process was done people observe and report no notes. Why would someone not think Joseph had been developing the story for years beforehand? Why wold someone not think he had notes and outlines to consult when he was away from the translation?
It is possible for a person to believe he had no preparation but it appears plausible that he did.
For me, that just doesn't cover all the bases. Did he come up with the complex chiasmus structures beforehand and rehearse them? If so, who was he performing for? Folks and even scholars at that time were not looking for it as they read the Book of Mormon. It wasn't until John Welch came across it that it was even a thing. Did he come up with the stylometric patterns (different voices) beforehand and then, almost miraculously, keep everything straight as he dictated the book? I don't see where in his situation, growing up where he did, and the hardscrabble life the Smith's were living, the education that he had, that Joseph had the wherewithal/means to come up with the Book of Mormon on his own.
The above two examples are just two of many that folks have come up with that seem to indicate 'there's more to the story' than simple fabrication.
It's hard to accept the 'hand of God' in our day doing a work that is unique in the annals of history/mankind. It's hard NOT to doubt. I'll hand you that.
Years ago I thought the closest thing to a 'smoking gun' to discredit the Book of Mormon was the Spaulding Theory. But as time went by I didn't see that as a possibility that explained all the stuff that had to be explained. I haven't seen a theory of Book of Mormon translation that makes sense when having to take everything into account...except that God had something to do with it.
Regards,
MG
Not to be rude but “Complex chiastic structures” is FAIR apologetic cope. Bultmann warned against something called “parallelomania” which was and still is a problem in biblical studies. Where everything is seen to be a parallel or chiastic or some sort of form that provides an esoteric meaning. This problem now extends even to current non-religious literature.
Not to mention anyone who plagiarized large sections of the KJV and other poetic literature with the ability to spin their own stories would have the talent to make such things even if unintentionally.
I haven't seen a theory of Book of Mormon translation that makes sense when having to take everything into account...except that God had something to do with it.
Regards,
MG
How could Joseph have learned the banjo portion of Dueling Banjos so successfully, if God was not involved?!!! Too much pickin' for a hardscrabble country boy.
For me, that just doesn't cover all the bases. Did he come up with the complex chiasmus structures beforehand and rehearse them? If so, who was he performing for? Folks and even scholars at that time were not looking for it as they read the Book of Mormon. It wasn't until John Welch came across it that it was even a thing. Did he come up with the stylometric patterns (different voices) beforehand and then, almost miraculously, keep everything straight as he dictated the book? I don't see where in his situation, growing up where he did, and the hardscrabble life the Smith's were living, the education that he had, that Joseph had the wherewithal/means to come up with the Book of Mormon on his own.
The above two examples are just two of many that folks have come up with that seem to indicate 'there's more to the story' than simple fabrication.
It's hard to accept the 'hand of God' in our day doing a work that is unique in the annals of history/mankind. It's hard NOT to doubt. I'll hand you that.
Years ago I thought the closest thing to a 'smoking gun' to discredit the Book of Mormon was the Spaulding Theory. But as time went by I didn't see that as a possibility that explained all the stuff that had to be explained. I haven't seen a theory of Book of Mormon translation that makes sense when having to take everything into account...except that God had something to do with it.
Regards,
MG
Not to be rude but “Complex chiastic structures” is FAIR apologetic cope. Bultmann warned against something called “parallelomania” which was and still is a problem in biblical studies. Where everything is seen to be a parallel or chiastic or some sort of form that provides an esoteric meaning. This problem now extends even to current non-religious literature.
Not to mention anyone who plagiarized large sections of the KJV and other poetic literature with the ability to spin their own stories would have the talent to make such things even if unintentionally.
I've looked at this somewhat closely. I'm convinced that the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon are not there by chance or by some random association between Joseph Smith's reading of the Bible and the input/output during the creation of the Book of Mormon.
MG 2.0 wrote:
I'm convinced that the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon are not there by chance or by some random association between Joseph Smith's reading of the Bible and the input/output during the creation of the Book of Mormon.
I don’t know about anybody else, but if MG is convinced, that’s good enough for me.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
To the ordinary and rational person, the above is just a circle, but with a little imagination and inventiveness, and psychological conditioning via Asch and perhaps Milgram, it can become so complex and so filled full of hidden meaning that it becomes indescribable. The circle continues for eternity and no one can fathom it, just ask the leaders and they will force, coerce, tell you what to think.
It is settled, the Book of Mormon is the most complexist, bestest, deepest book ever!!!!!
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
I've looked at this somewhat closely. I'm convinced that the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon are not there by chance or by some random association between Joseph Smith's reading of the Bible and the input/output during the creation of the Book of Mormon.
Regards,
MG
I cannot imagine chiastic patterns in the Book of Mormon as random or accidental. They are clearly a rhetorical device the author enjoyed.
I've looked at this somewhat closely. I'm convinced that the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon are not there by chance or by some random association between Joseph Smith's reading of the Bible and the input/output during the creation of the Book of Mormon.
Regards,
MG
I cannot imagine chiastic patterns in the Book of Mormon as random or accidental. They are clearly a rhetorical device the author enjoyed.
I think it was Micheal Ash who researched Welch's article about how use of chiasmus was unknown at the time the Book of Mormon was written; he definitively proved not only was that not true--it was already a device Smith would have imitated, but ALSO that Welsh know it and purposely tried to bury the knowledge. I'll see if I can find the reference.
MG 2.0 wrote:
I'm convinced that the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon are not there by chance or by some random association between Joseph Smith's reading of the Bible and the input/output during the creation of the Book of Mormon.
I don’t know about anybody else, but if MG is convinced, that’s good enough for me.
Even without the testimonies of the rest of his family members?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
I cannot imagine chiastic patterns in the Book of Mormon as random or accidental. They are clearly a rhetorical device the author enjoyed.
I think it was Micheal Ash who researched Welch's article about how use of chiasmus was unknown at the time the Book of Mormon was written; he definitively proved not only was that not true--it was already a device Smith would have imitated, but ALSO that Welsh know it and purposely tried to bury the knowledge. I'll see if I can find the reference.
Marcus i vaguely remember such an observation. Even without that observation I find it easy to consider the possibility that people might enjoy the rhetorical device in the Bible and without having a name for it employ it them selves. It is not a subtle device difficult to master or learn.
