Apparently I slept, or daydreamed, or zoned out in some other way through the classes that covered chiastic structure when I was in college. I am embarrassed to admit that the first time I became aware of the term was in a living room in Las Vegas less than eight years ago. I was listening to a Book of Mormon scholar, who shall remain nameless, describing chiasmus, and the technique he used in presenting it convinced me that this pattern was the exclusive property of the BOM. Shame on me for sleeping through those classes. But, in my defense, college was a long time ago. There’s not a lot of literary discussion in nursing homes, where I have spent the better part of the last twenty or so years pedaling pills and engaged in other activities which we’ll not go into now.

This was one of the reasons I was so enraptured by the story of the “simple” farm boy and his Golden Bible. How could he have done all that neat stuff if not by the power of God? After I left the Restored Church I tucked chiastic structure away. Far away. So I’m not sure what compelled me to dust it off a few days ago and “Google” it.

I love Google. It lets you type in any outrageous combination of words and it will nearly always give you at least a piece of what you’re looking for. Whether or not the information it feeds you is accurate is for you to determine. You must be circumspect to a fault when dealing with the Internet, particularly with Google. In the case of “chiasmus” it gave me 293,000 references. While I realize this doesn’t quite measure up to the numbers we have been exposed to in the past sixteen months, it certainly provided me with enough fodder in which to muck around for a long time. For example, it took me to Wikipedia, where I learned that chiastic structure was used in the Bible, the Torah, "Paradise Lost" (which I studied in college) and "Beowulf" (which I also studied,) among dozens of obscure and extant works dating back to the early Greek or Hebrew, depending on your perspective or political bent. The word itself is Greek, but the LDS insist that Joseph Smith’s Golden Bible is Hebrew. Not to be contentious, but I thought it was English.

Google also took me to quite a large number of Mormon web sites, all of which claim that the Book of Mormon is undoubtedly authentic simply by virtue of the presence of so many chiastic arrangements. And therein lies the rub. One of the sites I found, maintained by one Jeff Lindsay, tells us: “In the late 1960s, a young Latter-day Saint discovered that an ancient form of Middle Eastern poetry was found throughout the Book of Mormon, suggestive of its ancient Semitic origins. This poetical form, chiasmus, a type of inverted parallelism, reaches highly artistic heights in the Book of Mormon and is difficult to ascribe to chance. Yet the information available to Joseph Smith when the Book of Mormon was translated provided nothing to guide him in crafting such structures.” Then the hook: “Could this be part of a growing body of evidence for ancient Semitic origins for the text?”

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Any scholar worth his salt knows Joseph Smith grew up absolutely steeped in the Bible—a self-inflicted activity, and one which certainly gave him a leg up when it came to writing, translating, reciting or regurgitating the Book of Mormon.

Chiasmus is “a figure of speech by which the order of the terms in the first of two parallel clauses is reversed in the second.” From Answers.com

A An so they traveled onward
B Ever searching
B Always seeking
A As they journeyed onward

A The overarching theme is love God with all your hearts
B Never forgetting He made you and He loves you.
C Therefore keep His commandments,
D Looking to Christ our savior.
D With Jesus as our savior
C We will obey the commandments
B Of the One who made us and loves us,
A And we will love God the Father with all our hearts.

I will be the first to admit the above examples are pretty crude. But I’m simply trying to make a point. I made these up in about two to three minutes. Couldn’t Joseph Smith sit with his face in his hat and do the same thing? On the other hand, with all the words he used—around 275,000 of which 27,000 (nearly 10%) were direct quotes from the King James Bible—could not someone of John Welch’s ilk find a chiasm behind every tree? Remember, Smith was not stupid. He had an amazing capacity for memorization. He had read extensively. He was far from the naïve farm boy that the LDS propaganda machine has been so successful in presenting. Although he was no mental giant, I submit that he had “gifts” from a malevolent source, just as Mohammad and Pearl Curran had.

Furthermore, there have been more than 3,000 changes to the Book of Mormon manuscript since 1830. Surely some of these changes could or would have enhanced any number of the chiasms which pepper the entire book. John Welch, the man who discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon in 1967, states in a FARMS article ("How Much Was Known about Chiasmus in 1829 When the Book of Mormon Was Translated?" FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 47–80) it was unlikely but not impossible that Smith had heard of chiasmus. Before you say, “Hey, you didn’t know about it!” keep in mind I had hardly cracked the Bible, and I wasn’t on the brink of writing a “Golden” one when I was in college. To say these activities couldn’t have been further from my mind would be an understatement of biblical proportions.

Finally, after more rooting around I stumbled across a debate among three Mormon scholars along these same lines, concerning John Welch’s obsession with Alma 26 and the Great Chiasm. In “Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm” Earl M. Wunderli has this to say about Welch’s preoccupation with the chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon:

“Although Welch and others have found a number of extended chiasms in the Book of Mormon, including the entire books of First and Second Nephi and Mosiah, I will limit myself in this paper to a critique of Welch's Alma 36 chiasm. He calls it a "masterpiece of composition," one of his favorites, and "one of the best" from among hundreds he has evaluated. He has written about it at least four times. It reflects most of the problems with all of his extended chiasms. My argument is that he has imposed chiasmus on the Book of Mormon where none was intended.”

Not to be outdone, a father-and-son team, Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards wrote a response to Wunderli, with the imaginative title: "Response to Earl M. Wunderlin’s ‘Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm’":

“While valid statistical results do not require adherence to these particular literary standards, they do require careful attention to identifying and strictly accounting for all of the important elements in a passage, both those paired elements that participate in the basic chiastic structure of the passage, called chiastic elements, and those that do not.

“We developed six rules to ensure adherence to this requirement and to enable a uniform comparative analysis of various texts. We used these rules to identify and account for all chiastic and non-chiastic elements in each passage studied. We then used elementary statistics to calculate the likelihood that random rearrangements of these elements would be chiastic. In other words, this is the likelihood that chiastic structure could have appeared by chance rather than by design.

“Welch's and Wunderli's literary standards are largely irrelevant to this process. We validated our approach by confirming that it yields very small likelihoods for well-known deliberate chiasms such as Leviticus 24:13-23 and that it yields moderate or large likelihoods for spurious chiastic structure such as that found in the computer manual. Although authors do not select words at random as if from a hat when composing passages of text, the actual composition process yields passages having likelihoods that are comparable to those for random word selection when the author has no intention of writing chiastically. This observation further validates our statistical approach.”

Let’s be honest here: with all the repetition in the Book of Mormon—and it’s the most redundant book I’ve ever read—how could it not be possible to find a plethora of chiasms? Remove a book at random from your book shelf and chances are you will find more than one chiasm. Hint: Hawthorne or Poe.

To add to the confusion, Wunderli wrote a response to the Edwards and Edwards response in which he states: “With respect to the literary merits of Alma 36 as a chiasm, the Edwardses do not challenge any of my data but only my misapplication of Welch's proposed criteria. Welch's criteria are useful in determining the presence of chiasmus but are explicitly neither finished nor authoritative and should not be made the issue.”

I’m not making this up when I tell you that Edwards and Edwards responded to Wunderli’s response. Fortunately for all of us, I’m unable to locate it right now. And since this is a blog, not a scholarly journal, I feel I can get away with it. But I’ll depart the dueling academics and leave you with my personal favorite: Hebraicisms, Chiasmus, and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in “Green Eggs and Ham.” If you don’t click on any other link, click on this one.

In His Amazing love

Jan

(Note) A word about copyright: The website gives permission to copy and share one page, but not use it for commercial purposes. I have simply copied and pasted a few excerpts and provided a couple of links, giving credit to Dialogue: Journal of Mormon thought from which the long quotes came. Obviously I am not using any of this for commercial endeavors.

I want to wish all of you a most blessed Easter. For those of you with spouses or other family members still caught in Joseph Smith's tangled web, don't give up hope. For those of you who will be attending church alone this Easter morning, you are never really alone. Christ died and rose again so that none need ever be alone. When we hit the door of the church we will find loving hands.

My tears and prayers go out to each one of you; you who who are struggling, trying to find the truth; you who are grappling with loved ones who have not yet found the light; you who are still victims of the evil, may God's light shine on you all.

In His amazing love

Jan

Unlike the New York Times, which sticks its corrections on the last page, between an add for arugula (which isn’t even in my spell check) and the answers to last week’s crossword puzzle, let me be right up front with my correction. Or at least my I’m-still-trying-to-find-proof copout.

Here is the statement in question from the last post, "What's in a Word?":

“. . . misunderstood by Joseph Smith when he wrote his so-called inspired version of the Bible. You remember, the one he translated using the seer stone in his hat, right after he wrote the Book of Mormon utilizing essentially the same method. (Emphasis mine)

I was sure I had heard or read that this was the case. But Paul, who has about twenty more years of research than I, says no, it was something he and Sidney Rigdon cooked up. I have no doubt about that; it’s well documented. But I was certain I’d read about the Urim and Thummim/seer stone in the hat in the “translation” of the “Inspired Version” as well as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Not to be easily swayed, because I’m a good part rat terrier, I set out to find the truth.

After much web surfing and crawling through my own books, I got this far:

On a website entitled knowledgerush.com is this paragraph:

“ It is possible, but not certain, that Smith's process of receiving ‘revealed text’ is the same for this volume [Joseph Smith Translation] as it was for his earlier work, The Book of Mormon, and his later work, The Book of Abraham; however, these other works appear to have been dictated from beginning to end with little revision, and they purportedly based on an original ancient document. To translate, he may have used a seer stone in a hat, or a purported set of seer stones set in the form of spectacles which he called the Urim and Thummim. According to most accounts, however, most of the translation took place without any physical mediums, but by direct revelation through the Holy Spirit.”

The information doesn’t really reveal much, but I sent a question to them asking about the possibility. I haven’t received a reply yet.

In The Four Gospels of Joseph Smith we find that “In October of 1829 Oliver Cowdery, an associate and scribe for Joseph Smith, purchased a large leather bound edition of the King James Bible at Egbert B. Grandin’s Bookstore in Palmyra, New York. At the time Smith was residing in Pennsylvania. The Bible was published in Cooperstown, New York, by H. and E. Phinney Company in 1828. This printing included the Apocrypha. This KJV 1828 Bible (JS Bible) became the textual basis for the revision.”
H. Michael Marquardt, The Four Gospels of Joseph Smith (Xulon Press, 2007) 33.

This Bible now resides in the Community of Christ archives. It was also published in the town where I was born and grew up: Cooperstown, New York. Woo, woo, woo.

In 495 words I have managed, I hope, to make the correction. It is pretty clear that Joseph Smith did not use the Urim and Thummim, a stone or a hat in the “translation” of the “Inspired Version” of the Bible. Therefore, please disregard the following words: “so-called inspired version of the Bible. You remember, the one he translated using the seer stone in his hat,” in "What’s in a Word?"

I highly recommend that you read about Joseph Smith’s “Inspired Version” of the Bible, found on pages 103-112 in Part Way to Utah. Better yet, re-read the whole book. It’s on this website.

God bless

Jan

Recently there was an article in Restoration Voice which was written by an elder whom I happen to know slightly and for whom I have in the past had a great deal of respect. In it he attempts to explain a passage of scripture, and specifically one word in that passage. We all know how important one word was to a former president but this is a different word and a different context.

The word is “leave” and it was utterly and absolutely misunderstood by Joseph Smith when he wrote his so-called inspired version of the Bible. You remember, the one he translated using the seer stone in his hat, right after he wrote the Book of Mormon utilizing essentially the same method.

Hebrew 6:1 reads: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God . . .” (KJV)

The word “leave” in the Greek, is aphiemi, meaning to abandon, in some cases, but in other instances, meaning moving beyond something. When I began college, I took a number of introductory courses which laid the foundation for more advanced study: English 101, 102, 103, etc. Then I moved on to 201, 201, 203, etc. I did not abandon everything I learned in the first courses. I simply moved on to the higher level courses, further continuing my education.

This verse has been copiously explained by such scholars as Matthew Henry and John Calvin. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith didn’t have the intellectual capacity to grasp the implication of the passage. So he simply added the word “not” and utterly changed the impact. This is what he had to say about the verse: I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors…. Look at Heb. vi.1 for contradictions—“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection.” If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don’t believe it. I will render it as it should be—“Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works….”

Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1950), 6:57, 58.*

What makes this so disturbing is the number of seemingly intelligent people who believe this error. But multiply it by the thousands of Joseph Smith errors, inaccuracies, misinterpretations, sleights of hand, and outright lies and we have a church that is trapped in a quagmire of massive proportions. The followers of Joseph Smith would do well to follow instead the example of the Bereans in the 17th chapter of Acts. We wish they would do so.

In His amazing love

Jan

*I borrowed this section from The Book of Hebrews and the Joseph Smith Translation by Robert M. Bowman.

Centerplace.org has a forum where people of the RLDS/Reformation/sometimes CofC persuasion can go and commiserate about the mysteries of the churches which Joseph Smith spawned. At this time there is an ongoing discussion about how to witness to poor, deluded evangelical Christians: those who don’t have the “fullness of the Gospel.” One gentleman has been attending a Baptist church and isn’t sure how to approach the pastor or congregation about their abysmal missing link. In his words, and I hope I don’t break any copyright laws, “I have felt a very good Spirit in many of the services, and Brother (name removed) is a very humble, passionate, sincere and dedicated servant of the Lord. It has helped me get beyond all those negative experiences, and it has helped me to grow spiritually, as well. I came to the realization that even though these folks didn't have the Fullness of the Everlasting Gospel, they did have some light, and they were doing the very best they could with that portion of the Gospel that they did have. I realized also that it is only through a sense of charity that I was able to recognize this, and I'm thankful that my eyes were opened to this fact.” (Emphasis mine)

Is this how I felt about Christians while I was entrenched in the Joseph Smith church? Probably. I tried logging in to ask a question or two, but it’s been nearly three years since I was last on that forum and I think I have been kicked out. The questions I was asking at that time were making some people unhappy. They wouldn’t send me my password so I’m pretty sure I’m kaput where they are concerned.

So I Googled “Fullness of the Gospel” and found a website (LDS) which describes “The Preparatory Gospel and the Fullness of the Gospel” using the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon, with one or two references to Matthew 1: 4, 8. To be honest I tried to read through it. I really did. It seems the “Preparatory” Gospel is administered by the Aaronic priesthood and the “Fullness” is administered by the Melchizedek priesthood. I’m not making this up. It got so convoluted that I got a cramp in my brain and had to stop reading. No wonder those people are so confused!

I found another website (also LDS) in which the writer states that even though you receive Christ, and are baptized, if you do not “endure to the end” you will be cast out of God’s presence. Somehow the Gospel message gets derailed between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The Jesus Christ who supposedly visited the people in the New World after His resurrection doesn’t resemble in any way the Jesus Christ of the Bible. It seems like this is just another way Joseph Smith made it up as he went along. What didn’t make it to the Book of Mormon somehow, through a profuse number of revelations after its publication, made it to the Doctrine and Covenants.

How convenient. Another book to cover your shortcomings. How blessed we are to have just one book: The Holy Bible, which has been around for centuries, translated into hundreds of languages but never losing its original meaning. One need only go to the original Hebrew or Greek to confirm the truth of the Gospel.

Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Thank you, Refiner’s Fire) describes Gospel as “The joyous good news of salvation in Jesus Christ.” Furthermore, it states, “The gospel is not a new plan of salvation; it is the fulfillment of God’s plan of salvation that was begun in Israel, was completed by Jesus Christ, and is made known by the church.”

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” II Corinthians 11:3-4. (KJV) How much clearer can it get?

The savior, the spirit, and the gospel which the followers of Joseph Smith are so proud of are an illusion. The church which Joseph Smith started in 1830 is no church at all. He created it all with a stone, which, by the way, he stole, plus a bunch of hocus-pocus. Satan didn’t stop with Eve; he was just getting started. Just as Eve was conned by the devil, so the adherents of the Smith gospel are being conned every day.

It is experiences such as the peek at the Center Place forum that drive home the fact that these people are so entrenched in false doctrine that they are incapable of seeing truth. Sometimes I wonder just what will get through to them. My intellectual self tells me that only God through His Holy Spirit can get through; my emotional self says I need to beat them over the head with the real Bible. I think it’s just as well the forum didn’t send me my password. Speaking the truth in love is not my strong suit.

As someone once said, “When all else fails, read the instructions.” If we don’t have scripture ready to back up what we say it’s not going to work. Above all, if we don’t pray about it it’s not going to work, either.

In His amazing love

Jan