The Book of Mormon’s Chiasmus Problem – LDS Discussions

Introduction to the Episode and Hosts

Kolby Reddish 0:00 Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining me on today's episode of Mormon Stories podcast, LDS Discussions Edition. Thank you for joining me. As we look today at chiasmus, we're going to look at the issue of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as well as other elements of Restoration scripture to help us determine whether the presence of chiasms, which is a purported Hebrew ancient literary structure, helps establish evidence for the Book of Mormon's claim to be an ancient writing record. A few reminders about the LDS Discussions episode before we dig into the meat of today's episode is that the LDS Discussions episodes are an effort to examine Morton Church truth claims as objectively and fairly as we can.

Kolby Reddish 0:43 The series was originally created by a man named Mike, building on the work that he did on his website LDS Discussions, who has since retired from this project. But we're incredibly grateful that he got it started so that we could be with you here today.

Kolby Reddish 0:57 There are dozens of LDS Discussions episodes, both on the Apple Podcast app as well as Spotify, as well as the LDS discussions playlist on YouTube. I say that because these episodes typically build upon one another and you can find those previous episodes to listen through them sequentially at those locations. John believes that LDS Discussions is some of the most important work that Mormon Stories Podcast and the Open Stories foundation has ever done, and I agree with him. So thank you to everyone who supports this series and for joining us today. Let me go ahead and introduce our other panelists today. Well, I should probably introduce myself at the same time.

Kolby Reddish 1:37 I'm Kolby Reddish and I'll be your host for today or one of your hosts for today. I'm joined by Julia Sanders to the far left. Julia, how are you this morning?

Julia 1:45 I'm great, great.

Kolby Reddish 1:48 And the very illustrious, very British Nemo, the Mormon in the middle.

Nemo 1:53 Indeed, I am one of those things. Hello, everyone.

Kolby Reddish 1:57 Excellent. Well, Julia, tell folks what we're in store for today as we look at chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

What Is Chiasmus and Why It Matters

Julia 2:04 Yes. So chiasms is a repetition form like you said, like A, B, C, D, C, B, A. It's a literary form. It's a Hebraism, which means it's was used in ancient Hebrew style of writing. I got my major in literature at byu, Idaho and I am fascinated by this topic.

Julia 2:21 This was a big thing for me as an active member of the church to show that this Book of Mormon came from an ancient, has an ancient source, and then learning more that Joseph didn't even use the Book of Mormon in the translation. He just put his head in the hat with the rock people changed their perspectives on Tight and Loose. Anyway, so just this is an important topic for me. It was an important topic and it's really important to like show that the presence of chiasms doesn't make the Book of Mormon ancient, in my view. And so that's what we're talking about today.

Nemo 2:51 And if you've been watching sequentially, you will have seen that we've already covered tight versus loose translation. We've covered Book One translation quite heavily on this show, so check that out.

Kolby Reddish 3:01 The other good companion episode I think, to go along with this one is the Could Joseph Smith the writer, dictate a well worded letter episode? Because I think when we look at some of the other areas where we find chiasms in Joseph Smith in scripture that we know is attributable to Joseph Smith, I think that it bolsters the case that we made in that episode that Joseph Smith was very capable of dictating a text like the text of the Book of Mormon to keep it topical. Today we are also going to do this episode both forwards and then we will proceed to do it backwards.

Kolby Reddish 3:33 So it's going to be a very long one. No, I'm just kidding. But like Julia said, that's how an inverted parallelism or chiasm works is basically it states something forwards and then it states it backwards, really leading the reader's focus to the center of that chiasm, which is usually where the most important material is.

Nemo 3:54 But like a prog rock record, if you listen to this episode backwards, there will be a hidden message. I would like to say on the point from your introduction, Kolby, before we dive right into it, I think it's important to ask or to define very quickly how the presence of chiasms could be framed as being evidence of ancient scripture origin.

Nemo 4:14 So what is done many times when people are trying to prove the Book of Mormon is a genuine piece of ancient scriptures, they will point to things that could only be contained therein because of its ancient origin. That is Joseph couldn't have put them there. They have to have been there because the scriptures were written by ancient authors. So what we're looking at today, spoiler, is whether these things may have come from elsewhere, whether it is possible that Joseph Smith could have taken chiasms and put them within the Book of Mormon and therefore it's not the case that it must be ancient. That is a possible explanation still. But it is also possible that Joseph could have put them in.

Julia 4:54 I also want to say we've talked about reformed Egyptian before in an earlier episode, and I can put that in the show notes. But one thing that we don't explore in this, but I have questions over, is how even chiasms would be preserved. Because Joseph's understanding of reformed Egyptian was that a symbol could represent a multiplicity of sentences or multiple things. I still don't understand how, because it's not. The Book of Mormon wasn't written in Hebrew. We know that. And it's a Hebrew style of writing. It was written in reformed Egyptian. And I don't. I just don't know how people understand Hebraism or chiasm's lasting or being preserved.

Nemo 5:28 So especially as we'll see later on in the episode, we're going to look at the Book of Mormon in German and we're going to see that it wasn't entirely clear that chiasms can even be preserved when sort of it's taken outside of English with the Book of Mormon.

Kolby Reddish 5:42 Right. That would have been like if I were arguing against chiasms in the Book of Mormon as significant evidence of it being an ancient literary text. Julia. That would actually be my primary argument. So I think it's important to say we're going to bookend that and basically accept the premise that we would find.

Kolby Reddish 6:01 We would find chiasms in the Book of Mormon without even asking that question. But I think it's an important one to raise here at the beginning because to me, that is actually a complete defeater. Like if. If people look at that earlier episode when we talk about reformed Egyptian and the information density of reformed Egyptian, those scriptures where Mormon and Moroni are talking about how they created this record, make it really clear that the Hebrew had been altered by them also. Right. The text apologizes over and over and over again to say that no other person knoweth their language. So whether we should find this in the first place, if we accept the Book of Mormon's claims as true, I think is a very important question to raise. Just to say we're not going to get into the detail on that, but I think that actually is a complete defeater of.

Julia 6:42 So you're saying. So you're saying I didn't even have to do this research. Like we could have just go home.

Kolby Reddish 6:48 Julia. As an attorney, I like to win as many ways as possible. So I just want to get that in at the beginning. But to me, that that would be a complete defeater anyways. But yes, I think it's still important to say we're going to accept the premise and then look and see whether it, you know, from that premise even bears out.

Nemo 7:05 We're going to steal man the church a little bit. We're going to be like, okay, we'll accept that.

Kolby Reddish 7:08 Exactly.

Julia 7:09 Yeah, great. Okay, cool.

Nemo 7:11 Let's crack on.

Julia 7:12 Okay, so the first, the first thing I want to talk about is what chiasms are. And so we've talked about it already, but the, this is a screenshot from the fair Mormon Fair. Fair. What are they called now? I don't even remember. Just fair.

Kolby Reddish 7:24 Just fair. Yeah.

Julia 7:26 On chiasms. Nima, will you read this slide and I make it bigger for you.

Nemo 7:30 Chiasmus is an elegant literary device where parallel phrases are inverted. Chiasmus was popular in the ancient languages like Greek, Latin and especially Hebrew. It is found in the Bible and the Quran and other ancient documents. Okay, so already the scope of where it possibly could have been found is quite broad.

Nemo 7:49 Use of chiasms in American writing was virtually non existent until the mid 19th century. It wasn't until 1967 when John Welch first discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Consider that Joseph Smith had almost no formal education and chiasmus was virtually unknown in western civilization in 1830 when the book of Mormon was published, the majority of the chiastic passages were written by three Book of Mormon authors, Nephi, Benjamin and Alma, who were all descendants of Lehi and his Hebrew traditions, but almost completely missing from writings of Mormon, Moroni and Ether.

Nemo 8:22 Also consider there are several examples in the Book of Mormon including Alma 36, which is one of the best chiasmus anywhere. I want to point to the conflation there or the sort of massively overstating the case where they say that it was non existent until the mid 19th century in American writing and then go on to say it was virtually unknown in Western civilization.

Nemo 8:45 I'm sorry, but Joseph Smith's small part of frontier America wasn't the entirety of western civilization in 1830. I've drank in pubs older than the houses Joseph Smith was living in at the time. Right. Western civilization was alive and kicking. And we'll get to one of the greatest authors in Western civilization later in the show. And yeah, I just object to that very like America centric view there. It's like, well, Western civilization, that's not the entirety of it.

Kolby Reddish 9:19 Right. I think this is another area where I just would call out the way that apologists often completely overstate their case. And what I mean by that is when they're talking about, you know, chiasmus being virtually Unknown in Western Civilization, 1830, for all the reasons you already talked about, about Nemo. Yes, I think there's a, you know, a good reason to push back on that. But I think the other thing I would say is you can be using a literary structure without awareness of using that specific named literary structure. Really.

Kolby Reddish 9:55 I think chiasmus, where you just say something forwards and then you say it backwards and you're drawing attention to the most important part in the middle, is a very common way of presenting information. And what I mean by that is, when I teach, because I've taught before as an adjunct law professor, and when I've taught oral advocacy, I literally have told the students before to tell the audience, whether it's a jury or judge, whatever, tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them what you. And then tell them what you told them. Like, it's a very common way of explaining information, especially when that information is being delivered orally, like through dictation.

Kolby Reddish 10:33 Like, we know that the Book of Mormon was created. The other thing I would point to is the Bible. And I know we'll get into this in the. The slides to come, but the Bible is replete with chiasmus. So whether someone knew that that was the name of the specific literary structure doesn't mean that they can't have noticed a pattern. That the Bible often says things forwards and then backwards and draws attention to the material in the middle. So I think. Really?

Nemo 11:01 Yeah. If you were trying to sound biblical, you would. You would copy that style, would you?

Kolby Reddish 11:05 Not exactly. And you might be doing that completely unaware that you're parroting this chiastic structure. You're really just trying to sound like the Bible. And because the Bible is replete with chiasmus, maybe that's the clearest explanation, at least in my mind.

Julia 11:23 Yeah.

Nemo 11:23 Yeah. There's a really simple parallel there with other rhetorical devices, like the rule of three, saying three things in a row for emphasis. You don't have to know that that's a named rhetorical device to use it if you hear it elsewhere. I think it's really that simple.

Kolby Reddish 11:39 Yeah. What do you think of this middle sentence of the bottom paragraph where it says the majority of the chiastic passages were written by three Book of Mormon authors, Nephi, Benjamin and Alma, who were all descendants of Lehi and his Hebrew traditions, but almost completely missing from the writings of Mormon, Moroni and Ether. So ether I can understand why they would carve off. But Mormon and Moroni also date back to being descendants of Lehi. Yeah. So I'm not understanding why they're separating those two. They're acting like that, like that separation is significant in some way. But to me, that doesn't help their case.

Nemo 12:13 I mean, yeah, because I think the argument is the Jaredites are not of Hebrew tradition.

Kolby Reddish 12:19 Right.

Nemo 12:20 But that doesn't help because Mormon and Moroni would have been.

Julia 12:22 Well, who is it that said that the Hebrew had been altered by us? Also Mormon and Moroni. So is that why they're chopping them off? Is because, like, oh, we can see preservation in the early ones.

Kolby Reddish 12:33 It's possible. But like Alma comes hundreds and hundreds of years after Nephi. So I'm not. Well, they're not necessarily right.

Julia 12:41 They have to accept Alma because of the Alma. 39 or 36. I always say that. 36, yeah.

Nemo 12:47 Which is one of the best chiasmus anywhere. Which again, not only is that a subjective claim we're going to prove later in this episode, there is one far better chiasmus that exists. It is beautiful in its simplicity and I cannot wait to share it with you all.

Kolby Reddish 13:00 I think it's chiasms, for what it's worth. Not best chiasmus. I think it's chiasm.

Nemo 13:05 That's.

Julia 13:05 Yeah. So those two words. And I apologize if listeners, because I'm going to get these words wrong because I think it's the same as like, it's similar to saying poetry and poem because it's chiasmus and chiasm. Because chiasmus I think is the, the, the art or the, the type of way of writing. And then poem, poem or chiasm is the one example I think is.

Nemo 13:24 And I will get it wrong at some point, but that is correct.

Joseph Smith's Background and Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

Julia 13:27 I want to say that some of the research that I'm showing here is from William Davis. I really like his research and this church saying he has no formal. He had almost no formal education. And the church will say that he only went to three years of schooling or has a third grade education. William Davis has done research to show that he could have had as many as 10 years of schooling, of formal schooling. But also, Even in the 1826 Treasure Our Glass Liquor trial, he was 20. And he says he was still attending school. So, like, I just think it's silly for the church to try to throw or I mean, fair to throw that out there. Like, oh, he was uneducated. So let's just take that off the table.

Nemo 14:05 So, yeah, I'll consider that he had almost no formal education. And I will consider that to be untrue.

Kolby Reddish 14:10 Yeah, yeah, yeah. Even if he had very little formal education. We've talked about this on a number of different episodes. Before, Joseph Smith's world was the world of the second Great Awakening. And the bottom line is children were taught to read using the King James version of the Bible. In this day and age, that cannot be understated. When we're looking at the better explanation for why chiasmus is in the Book of Mormon and we're entertaining the two hypotheses, to me, it is so much clearer that it's more likely that he was trying to mimic the words, the pacing, and the way the language is used in the King James Bible rather than that this dates back to a legitimate ancient Hebrew document.

Julia 14:54 Yeah, I'm getting my degree in history and I have a couple classes left, but I took a history, history, American history class, education. And they would. They would have these young students just recite passages from the King James version of the Bible. And that was just what they did for that's just what they did. So, like, Joseph was. Would have been very familiar with the King James version of the Bible. But anyway, okay, so first I want to explore, because this whole topic is fascinating to me. There are different types of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. And by that I mean just different repetition styles.

Julia 15:27 There's just different things that are throughout the Book of Mormon. And so Anaphora is one of them. It's the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of a successive clause. And it's the easiest type of Hebrewism to identify her Hebrew writing style. So some of the Examples are in first Nephi 118 through 13, with the. Or 13 and then. Or, excuse me, first Nephi 11, 8, and then through first Nephi 131 and then it repeats the phrase look and I looked. And that's repeated 10 times in this grouping of verses. And then first Nephi 21:7 through 25, it repeats the phrase thus saith the Lord five times.

Julia 16:04 Second Nephi 9, chapter 9, 11 through 51, it repeats the phrase the Holy One of Israel 13 times. Second Nephi 9, verses 30 and 38, it repeats woe unto. And it says this nine times. And then second Nephi 10, 8, 19, the phrase saith God is used six times. So it's just this repetition of phrases.

Nemo 16:23 Have we not. Have we not missed the most obvious example? And it came to pass.

Julia 16:29 Right, I should have added that one in there.

Nemo 16:32 Yeah, well, now you don't have enough time to count that many instances, Julia, if I'm honest with you. So Please continue.

Julia 16:39 Well, these are just more examples. My soul delighteth for all this. His anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Nemo 16:45 And that's stolen from Isaiah, by the way. Just if we want to ask where he may have got this idea, he's quoting Isaiah in 2nd Nephi 19:12. So.

Julia 16:55 Yeah, yeah, no, you're good. That's great. That's great. And then there's a phrase, woe be unto him, that's repeated in second Nephi. And then, and they shall write, it is repeated in second Nephi. You have Mosiah, oh, how beautiful. Upon the mountains were their feet. And I'm pretty sure that's Isaiah also.

Kolby Reddish 17:09 It is.

Julia 17:10 And then Alma 5 I say unto you, or I ask of you. And he says this 20 times. And then another one in Alma 5 is will ye persist? And so these are just, just repetitions at the beginning of a phrase. So I just, I just also find that fascinating. This is an example just to show you just on the screen, I won't read the whole thing, but this is the second Nephi 11. Through verses 2 through 6, he's just repeating my soul delighteth throughout the whole phrase for the whole grouping of verses. And then another one. I cannot ever say this.

Nemo 17:39 Nemo, will you say the word polycyndeton?

Julia 17:42 Polysyndeton, yes. This is the use of multiple conjunctions placed between every item in a series. So we can see this in second Nephi 9 28, it uses the word and it just repeats it. Instead of saying like I went to the store and got bread, milk, cheese, you'd say bread and milk and cheese or whatever. You're just saying that. Repetitive repeating. You're just repeating that. So you have the, you know, and, and, and, and then one of them is, is the word by.

Julia 18:10 So here in Alma44.5 it's using the word word by to add all those together. And then in second Nephi 5:15 it's. And, and, and anyway, so these are just fascinating things to me. Just that these are very normal and this Hebrew. Okay, so going on to chiasmus while serving a mission in Germany in 1967, which we've already talked about, 20 year old John W. Welch discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Chia said it's a writing style that dates back to ancient times and it can be defined as most simply an inverted parallelism. And so this is an episode from Scripture central where he was on and he was being interviewed and he's just telling his story.

John Welch and the Discovery of Chiasmus

Julia 18:50 And so I Wanted to share some of these clips because I think, like, just to show a little bit more of the history about where this, this comes from.

Guest 1 18:57 When my companion and I were just walking by a bulletin board there in Regensburg, Germany, where we were the only missionaries in that town, and there was a notice that there would be a series of lectures about the New Testament that would be given that summer. And I thought, well, we could probably learn some things there. We walked in and sat down in this lecture. Actually, we only attended this lecture once because we had conflicts every other Friday when it was being taught. But once was enough.

Julia 19:37 Just a quick view on that. And the point that I wanted you guys to make sure you understand is that here he's about to attend this lecture on the New Testament. And so this is just a common thing, so common in the New Testament that they have a lecture on it. And then that's what Jack Welch or John Welch goes with his companion to go and hear. So it's just a. It's a very normal or acceptable thing that chiasmus are present in the New Testament. I don't know if you guys have any comments.

Nemo 20:03 I just had something real quick. I thought of during that and during what we were just talking about where in terms of literary devices that we don't know the name of. I've just read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky. I can now tell you that in ancient Russian literature, having read a couple of his other books as well, I can tell you without being as familiar as Joseph would have been with the Bible, that if you want to write like someone in that time period, you're going to say that person's first two names over and over and over again in speech to them. You're going to keep saying Alexei Petrov.

Nemo 20:31 Alexei Petrov, Alex, whatever it might be. Right. Constantly, over and over again. I don't know what that's called. I don't know what the name of that device is, but if I was trying to imitate that style, I know I would do that. So there's an example of just how Joseph Smith could have treated chiasmus.

Julia 20:49 Yeah. Another thing that I was. That was really interesting is that we recently had a book for book club that was written by a Muslim woman and she reads the. She grew up reading the Quran. And so throughout her book, this is Hijab Butch Blues, it's about a queer woman who is also Muslim.

Guest 2 21:03 And.

Julia 21:03 But she. She does those same repetitions, the anaphora where it's. She's beginning at. She's Saying the same phrase. But this book was written in 2023, so like, and it's, it's just not ancient Hebrew. But she has read the Quran enough that she, she's just picking up on these styles. Naturally, she doesn't know she's doing it. But anyway, that was just another thing that I was thinking about as well, is just that it's. It's just a common sort of oral thing to do. Yeah. Okay. So there's another clip that I want to show of. This is the actual story of him discovering chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

Kolby Reddish 21:35 Great.

Guest 1 21:36 As I was thinking about this and so on, I very early one morning have a very clear impression. I like to think that it was words, but it was something that woke me up. Okay. And it was before the sun had come up, so it's early 4:00 clock maybe. And the clear words were, well, if it's evidence of Hebrew style in the Bible, it must be evidence of Hebrew style in the Book of Mormon. And I didn't go back to sleep.

Julia 22:12 Of course not.

Guest 1 22:13 And I didn't want to wake up my companion, you know, But I got out of bed and I did go and get my Book of Mormon or just sat down at the table where we read the. The Book of Mormon before we went to bed.

Julia 22:27 Okay, so you just had your scriptures already out. So you sat down right where you

Guest 1 22:30 were right there and turned on a little lamp.

Julia 22:33 And are you in the German or English?

Guest 1 22:35 German.

Kolby Reddish 22:35 Okay.

Guest 1 22:36 And I just thought, well, I'll start where we left off. And that was in Mosiah chapter four. So as I turned the page on Mosiah chapter five, it didn't take long for my eye to notice two words, two big, long German words that are the words for transgression. Uebertre tung uber treitung. And those two words were right on

Julia 23:01 top of each other in the German translation. In our English one, they're a little bit offset there. But we're talking about chapter five, verse 11.

Guest 1 23:12 Yes. And that this name will never be blotted out except it be through uber traitung transgression. The English says, therefore take heed that you do not transgress. He makes it a verb. But the German said, therefore guard yourself against transgression.

Julia 23:35 So it's the exact same word. So you are caught this, that the

Guest 1 23:41 name be not blotted out of your heart. So those four words you said, okay,

Julia 23:47 here's two now, are there any others? And you kept looking.

Guest 1 23:50 So. Yes. And then I just started going, well, how above that below that. And of course, you can see that you are not found on the left hand of God. Now, the left hand of God only appears here in all of scripture that I can find, and it appears twice. This has to be intentional.

Julia 24:09 Oh, of course it is. Did you guys have thoughts on that?

Nemo 24:14 Oh, I have thoughts, but, Kolby, you can go first.

Kolby Reddish 24:17 Well, I mean, his. Yeah, there's so many places I could jump in. But I'll just start with his last statement. That is not the only place that scripture is found. A reference to people being on the left hand of God. I mean, this literally comes out of Matthew 25, the sheep and the goats, the one on the one hand, the other on the other. So I don't know why he. Like, even if we were to accept his case, I don't understand why they apologists constantly do this. They constantly misrepresent the evidence to make their purported hits more impressive. That's not the only place that phrase is found in scripture, and John Welch should know that just as well as anybody.

Kolby Reddish 24:50 Like, he obviously seems like a very kind, studious person. I don't mean this as a personal insult to him, but there are so many references to people being found on the various hands of God throughout the scriptures, including Matthew 25.

Kolby Reddish 25:04 The other thing, I guess I'm struck by. And we talked about this a little going into this episode, but the hit is better in German than it is in English because they're using the exact same phrase rather than like a nominalization, or I guess they are using a nominalization. They're taking the verb and making it into a noun. Right. To transgression instead of transgressing.

Kolby Reddish 25:31 I think just him describing the way that he found this hit to me underlines how subjective finding these hits for chiasmus truly is. And listening to him explain the methodology, I think reveals that directly.

Nemo 25:51 Yeah, right.

Julia 25:54 I will say.

Nemo 25:56 No, no, you go, Julia, before I

Julia 25:58 just want to say. So I've done a lot of research on this before. I didn't put in the criteria, but Jack Welch, I think, came up with. I can't remember if it was 12, 13. Certain specific criteria for chiasm. Like, it has to be so many words between the phrases. It has to be. I can't remember all of them, but some of them, even the ones that he's pulled out, don't really follow that. I don't really understand that. But we're not exploring that today. We're just taking that. Like, we'll just accept these as chiasms and. But yeah, Nima, we were looking at. When Neemo and I were discussing this, we were looking at these two different words because the English translation is a little bit different than the one he was looking at in 67.

Nemo 26:31 So, yeah, the one he was looking at is 67. And I have an old edition of the gem Book of Mormon in my storage lock, and I should have tried to go get it. But when we were discussing these slides, I went and I grabbed my 2003 translation of the Book of Mormon in German. I was like, okay, let's have a look. Let's see what we got. I just wanted to check. And sure enough. You know how you said this was clearer? Ubertretreitung was used twice on top of each other. And that's quite clear visually. You can see on the left, that's a picture of what I have in front of me.

Nemo 27:02 And they've changed it. So. Das ihr nicht ubertgretet. So it's gone from essentially that. It's gone from transgression to then transgress. So they've changed it to more closely match the English. There's also Auskeroded, which. I'm not sure why he's gone with that, because that's not in this one. It's Auskerluicht, which is slightly different again. So I don't know if he's reading an even earlier translation or what. But they mean broadly similar things. One's more like exterminated or extinguished rather than sort of. Auscalust is more like wiped out. So it's kind of closer to blotted as a word.

Chiasmus in the Bible and Other Ancient Texts

Nemo 27:51 So my. My point is that scriptures, particularly German translations, get updated. And so it's interesting to see how that has an effect on these chiastic structures in a secondary language, because you've got. It's come from reformed Egyptian into English, and there's apparently chiasms in there. And then it goes into German.

Nemo 28:12 And it was in German that he spotted it, because it so happened that in the German, they had chosen to use the noun form of that verb twice in a row. And then they've changed it, which means, like you said, the subjectivity of it. He wouldn't have necessarily seen it if he'd been reading a newer version of the Book of Mormon. So if these things are there for, like, stylistic impact and for us to see, it's interesting how these translation differences make an effect on that. Thus endeth my rant.

Julia 28:40 Well, my thoughts are like. Because we're kind of. These are both German. One's just A different was trying to be more reflective of what we have in English. But if we're kind of losing the chiasm a little bit with just a little bit of changes in the German, I still don't understand how reformed Egyptian could preserve any of that.

Kolby Reddish 28:56 Yeah, I think this slide really helps drive that point home. I know we said we're going to kind of bookend that, but yeah, I completely agree because now we're separated. Like Nemo just talked about, where a few levels of translation separated from whatever the original text would be. And just using this specific example of updating the German version to have it more closely mirror the English version, you start to lose the chiasm that helped him discover this find in the first place. I think it, it bears repeating. The point that how is all of this carrying over through from the. From basically Hebrew thought patterns into reformed Egyptian translated to English and now translated from the English into German?

Kolby Reddish 29:43 Because just the slight changing of one of the word choices makes the chiasm either a tighter or a looser hit. And so when you have that many different levels of translation, who knows exactly how closely we should be finding these things in the text?

Nemo 29:59 Anyways, just a point to really screw that home. I've just spotted something. So in his old version it says Unis musta das Iwa dastiza nam'.

Julia 30:08 Ist.

Nemo 30:08 Etc Etc So it says, and I would that you would pay attention that this is the name that we say is given to you and it shouldn't be blotted out. And then the chiastic part of that following in verse 12 is. So I say to you, you should not forget. So the first part is like you should pay attention to. And then the chiastic parallel is. And you shouldn't forget in the newer version they've used the phrase undis musta das ih auch daran dengt. And so you should think thereon. And they use that twice in verse 12. So I say to you, ich mustter das ear dalan dental. So uses the exact same phrase again. So in the newer version they've made that part of the chiasm tighter. So again we're seeing that chiasms get looser or tighter just depending on translation choices.

Julia 31:01 Right, right, yeah, sorry. Well, that's great.

Kolby Reddish 31:05 I guess the one last point I guess I'll say about this is anything that involves looking at text and finding patterns in text, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that our brains as human beings are hardwired to be overactive Pattern detection machines. That's just what they do very well. And so I think it's important that we underscore this point, that there's a reason that I'm skeptical of people finding these subjective hits is because we know that our brains do this automatically, that they want to find narrative closure, that they want to find patterns like this.

Kolby Reddish 31:42 Even the way that John was describing his experience, like hearing that this structure existed in this New Testament lecture series, and then going and looking to find it in the Book of Mormon is literally like going out for confirmation bias, like going and looking for the thing that he thought he should find. And what do you know? He went and found it unsurprising to people who understand how human psychology works, because very oftentimes, if your brain is going to go look for a pattern, you're going to find something that will fit a loose pattern. That's just the way that it works.

Julia 32:14 Yeah. Yeah, that's great. Okay, so more on the chiasm chiasmus. John W. Welch once stated that the discovery of biblical style chiasmus in the Book of Mormon strongly reduces the probability that Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could have written the book. However, and these are my words, however beautiful and impressive chiasms are in the scriptures, the fact that they are also present in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Abraham, and even in many of Joseph Smith's letters and other writings move us away from seeing them as evidence that they are of ancient origin. And that's, that's pretty much the gist of our episode today.

Julia 32:52 Okay, so now I have examples from the Old and New Testament and then from the other scriptures that I've. Or other texts that I just referenced. I don't want to read, I don't want to bog you guys down and read all of. Through them all, but I do want to read some of them. So this is from Genesis 17, verses 1 through 24.

Julia 33:08 So it starts off Abraham was 90 years old, and then he's walking with God. He says, walk before me and be thou perfect. C Is. Will multiply the exceedingly. D. Abraham fell on his face. E. Thy name shall be Abraham for a father of many nations. F. I will establish my covenant for an everlasting covenant. And I haven't included every single word in the, in the verses, just so you know. And then G, this is my covenant between me and thee. And then you have G repeated again and we're going, we're going to go backwards now. It shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Julia 33:39 F My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. E Sarah shall be her name. So this like the opposite of the Abraham. And she shall be a mother of nations rather than father of nations. D Then Abraham fell upon his face. C Multiply him exceedingly. B God went up from Abraham, so instead of coming to him, he's leaving him. A Abraham was 90, was 90 years old and 9. So this is just an example of chiasms in the Old Testament.

Nemo 34:08 That's a pretty good example of a chiasm more generally. It's a pretty clean one.

Julia 34:13 Yeah. And like some of these, I don't know if these have all been accepted by scholars. That's not really the gist of today. But like, these are ones that I've either found or the ones that have been shown to me by Scripture Central or other. Or John Welch in his research.

Nemo 34:28 And it is important to note that chiasms are thematic more broadly. The words don't have to be identical in order for it to count. They can be. They are around a theme. So God went up from Abraham is connected closely enough to the idea of Abraham walking before God that they. They count particularly within the rest of the structure.

Kolby Reddish 34:50 Yeah. Or E and E, I think is a good. Another additional example. Like we have the exact opposite, right? We have father Abraham and then we have mother Sarah. So we have actually not the same idea. We have the complete opposite idea, but the theme is basically the same thing because it's talking about their role as like progenitor of this nation.

Julia 35:11 Right, Right. So there's another one from Deuteronomy 3. 24. And then it goes on to chapter four verses, verse 22. Nima, do you want to repeat some of these or talk about this one?

Guest 1 35:21 Sure.

Nemo 35:22 Yeah. So it starts with, I pray thee, let me go over and see the good land that is beyond Jordan. The Lord was wroth with me for your sakes. C Is lift up thine eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward. D Is keep the commandments of the Lord your God. E is, I have taught you statutes and judgments. F is keep therefore, and do them. G. For what nation is there so great? H Call upon him. G. And what nation is there so great? F Take heed of thyself and keep thy soul diligently. E. The Lord commanded me to teach you statutes and judgments. D Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, lest ye corrupt yourselves. C Lift up thine eyes unto heaven.

Kolby Reddish 36:05 B.

Nemo 36:06 The Lord was angry with me for your sakes. A I must not go over to Jordan, but ye shall go over and possess that good land. And this is Moses saying he can't accompany them, right?

Julia 36:18 Yeah. And so some of the ones that I've highlighted in black, they're a different kind of concept than is repeated in their opposite. But. But some of the phrasing is just so spot on that like they just. I don't know how else to see it other than a chiasm. Like, what nations are so great to teach you statues and judgments. Yeah.

Nemo 36:35 So I don't think anyone's going to try and argue with you that these aren't chiasms in the Old Testament. That would be a wild take.

Julia 36:41 Yeah. Yeah. I don't know why somebody would take that. And again, I don't want to. I don't want to read this whole thing, but maybe. Nima, do you want to just kind of hit the points?

Nemo 36:47 Yeah, sure. So it's Lord spake unto Moses. Then it's cursed without the camp. And then someone being stoned. Then it's speaking to the children of Israel. Then it's the stranger as well, that he was born in the land. Then it's killeth any man shall surely be put to death. Then it killeth a beast shall make it good. Then it's cause a blemish in his neighbor. Then it's breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Then it's causing a blemish in a man. Then it's killeth a beast that he shall restore it. Then it's killeth a man, and he should be put to death. Then it's the stranger as for one of your own country. Then it spake to the children of Israel. Then it's cursed out of the camp. Stone him with stones. And then it's the Lord commanded Moses.

Julia 37:25 Thank you. And that was Leviticus 24. And I don't. Yes, that one seems like a pretty good example to me. And then Job here. This is one I think other people had pulled out. A is show unto me your opinion. This is just a very simple one. B, multitude of years and wisdom. And then C, the middle point. And the main point is usually the one right when everything converges. Um, there's a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding. And then you repeat again, the wise and age, which is similar to multiple years in wisdom. And then show unto me your opinion, or show show my opinion.

Julia 38:01 And this is job 32. And this is just some examples. There's a bunch more. And just for the sake of this, what we're covering today, I didn't pull out more than these four. Um, so then we have Nikaias in the New Testament. And I wish I had pulled out the book that he was showing, because that would be a really great place to start if you were looking for. If you wanted to know more about these New Testament chiasms. Kolby, do you want to talk about this one?

Guest 2 38:27 Sure.

Kolby Reddish 38:27 So this comes from the book of first Peter 3, chapter 3, and then into chapter 4. So it starts by talking about how people speak evil of you. And then the second element links it to suffering for the will of God. The third element then talks about it comparing that suffering to Christ's suffering. Then it talks about Christ going to preach unto the spirits in prison. Then it talks about Noah and the eight souls being saved by water. Water. Then it talks about baptism. So that's kind of our center point in this particular chiasm. Then it goes back and talks about angels and authorities being made subject unto Christ. Then it again talks about Christ's suffering. Then it suffered. Talks about suffering the will of God. And then it again backs out by talking about speaking evil of Peter.

Julia 39:19 Yeah, perfect. And then this one's a very tight one. I. I think this is Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one C, and love the other C, or else he will hold to the 1B, and despise the other. And then A, you have the repeating again. You cannot serve God and mammon. It's just a very simple chasm. And then Nemo. Do you want to just.

Kolby Reddish 39:40 I think, too, like, that example to me, is a really good one, because the tighter the chiasm, the more intentional I see the connections. Like some of the connections we've seen before. Like, yes, you can see clear thematic parallels between some of the elements, but some of them drastically change what it's talking about. Right? It's changing. Kind of like we talked about with the example in German, it's changing it from a noun to a verb. Or maybe it's changing the subject in a subsequent clause. So I guess what I'm saying is, when all you're doing is finding thematic parallels, it's not all that surprising to me that you can find thematic parallels in this inverted parallel structure.

Kolby Reddish 40:15 But this one, because it's so tight and it's so clear and it's. It literally is stating it forwards and then backwards. Again, the more. The tighter that a chiasm is, the more intentional it appears to me when I look at them mapped out this way. Like this one seems clearly intentional instead of just being the product of our mind's ability to find patterns where patterns maybe don't exist or maybe where it's not a perfect fit. This one, to me looks like a perfect fit. Right. The elements are exactly the same. It's basically stating it forwards and then stating it backwards and having the centerpiece talking about the love of basically, which master are you going to prioritize the most? Is the central focus of this chiasm.

Julia 41:04 And I want to ask when you say intentional, because like William Davis talks about how Shakespeare, These chiasms show up all the time in his. In his plays and his writings. And so while he's. Maybe what you mean by intentional is that this person is specifically trying to repeat this and to make this pattern. Not that, oh, I'm going to stick a Hebraism in here. Or this is a intentionally. A form of ancient writing. I just. I think what you mean is just that these are. He's just. They're just trying to make the. Repeat it back and forth. Repeat a forward.

Kolby Reddish 41:30 Correct. When. When I'm talking about intentional here, what I mean is that the author intended it to serve as a chiasm, to use this structure rather than just the author talking about broadly, broadly similar themes in a passage and then people finding the inverted parallelism because the themes that the author is talking about are so squishy altogether. It's a normal way of talking. When we say something both forwards and then backwards, it just is a normal way of presenting information. So I'm saying, because this one is so tight, it appears much more intentional to me than some of the looser ones where we kind of have to squint at a few of the elements. The elements here are very clean, right?

Julia 42:13 Yes. Okay, so we have this one. This is Matthew 13.

Nemo 42:18 So Matthew 13, we go from parables to then see not and hear not, to then prophecy, to then hear, to then see, to then heart, to then ears and hearing, to then eyes to then enclosed and then about the eyes opening, there's a little. There's the twist. Then you go back to eyes, then you go to hear with their ears, then you go to heart, then you go to see, then you go to hear, then you go to prophets, then you go to not seen them, which is the same, and not heard them, and then you go to parable again, this one's pretty tight and it's over quite a large section which is quite.

Kolby Reddish 42:53 Yeah, this one looks very intentional. Yeah, this one looks very intentional to me again, too. I also like that where we have the reversal of the two elements in the middle. That, again, looks very intentional to me. It's when we have the reversal of the elements, not directly in the middle, that it looks like, oh, is this just a product of our pattern recognition kind of going overactive? This one seems very intentional because it literally gets to the apex and then it backs itself back out.

Julia 43:21 Mm. Yeah. And in the same. Yeah, the same order. Because sometimes people will write chiasms, and if something is out of order, they'll. They'll switch the letters around a little bit, which is, I guess, I. To me, that's sort of like squinting and trying to figure out a pattern. Whereas these ones. These ones follow that exact pattern.

Nemo 43:38 It'd be like allowing six syllables in a haiku, because why not? It's just, you know, if. If there's. If there's a literary device that has set structures and rules, they're not arbitrary.

Julia 43:51 Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 43:52 And I guess, again, I'll just reiterate. I know we said we're going to bookend this point, but looking at the complexity of the sentence structure here and how beautiful this particular passage is, I guess I'm just again struck by. When we looked at the information density of reformed Egyptian relative to Hebrew in that earlier episode, Joseph Smith could take one. One reformed Egyptian character and turn it into an entire paragraph worth of text. And so when you have a literary structure that's so dependent on sentence structure in particular, it's difficult for me to see how you would pull this out of those characters based on the way we understand. Joseph Smith understood how reformed Egyptian, or all forms of Egyptian supposedly worked in his day and age.

Julia 44:38 Right. And it was a common idea that this one symbol would mean multiple things.

Guest 2 44:44 So.

Julia 44:44 Yeah, so this next one is from Galatians, and this is. I just. I'm showing that. I'm pulling it out of John W. Welch's paper. Kyle Chiasmus in the New Testament. So you have, A. The heir. The heir remains a child and a servant. B. Until the time appointed by his of the father. C. When that time came, God sent forth his son. D. Made under the law. And then you're repeating it again. D. To redeem those under the law. C. Because you are sons. God sent forth his son spirit. The. The spirit of his son. B. That ye cry abba, father. And then A. That ye are no more a servant, but a son in heir.

Julia 45:18 And so this one's a very. It looks like a very clean chiasm. And then now I'm gonna launch into chiasms in the Book of Mormon again. There's way more examples than what I just showed, especially with. And I can link the. The book that he's talking about in his video and then even this paper for reference.

Kolby Reddish 45:36 And let's just pause for a second before we get into the Book of Mormon and talk about. I know Nemo already made this point, but it's not controversial to say that chiasms in the Old and New Testament are legitimate chiasms, because we know through manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, and other forms of evidence that the Bible was written by Hebrews, by ancient Hebrews. And so I just want to reiterate that point, because going and finding a similar sentence structure or a similar literary structure in a book like the Book of Mormon that's trying to sound like the Bible, like, inherently, I think there's maybe a problem with the methodology and saying, well, this thing in the Book of Mormon is something also that the Bible does.

Kolby Reddish 46:23 Therefore, the Book of Mormon is exactly like the Bible in the sense that it's also ancient. Like, we know the Bible is ancient for completely other reasons than finding chiasms in it.

Julia 46:33 Right.

Nemo 46:33 I think I'm glad you brought that up, because John Welch starts with the assertion that he'd been thinking to himself, well, if chiasms are evidence for Hebrew origin in the New Testament, then they must be evidence for Hebrew origin of the Book of Mormon. That's a bad premise because they are not evidence of Hebrew origin of the New Testament. That's not what they are. They are a Hebrew literary device that is present because of the Hebrew influences on the New Testament. That influence is evidenced, like you said, by manuscript evidence and all those sorts of things that we have. So his premise there was bad. That the idea that it's evidence of its Hebrew origin, and therefore it will be evidence of the Book of Mormon's Hebrew origin.

Kolby Reddish 47:16 Right?

Julia 47:16 Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So now, looking at examples from Book of Mormon. So this is the one that he was talking about. And we can just go over this in English. Nima, do you want to just go through these points from Isaiah 5, 10?

Nemo 47:30 Now it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name. So it's name of Christ and called therefore he find himself on the left hand of God. And I would that you should remember also that this is the name that I would give unto you that never should be blotted out except it be through transgression. Therefore take heed that ye do not transgress. For the name be not blotted out of your hearts. I say unto you, I would that you should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, which connects back to E.

Nemo 48:02 That you are not found at the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which you shall be called, and also the name by which he shall call you. So this is the one that Welch found in the German. We've already kind of done to death a little bit on the German part of this.

Julia 48:17 And it's still a chiasm even if that's a chiasm. Yeah, yeah. Okay, this is one. This is ether 13.

Kolby Reddish 48:25 Oh wait, I thought they're not found in ether.

Nemo 48:28 Oh well that's what Fair said.

Kolby Reddish 48:30 Yeah.

Julia 48:32 So this is. Behold, ether saw the days of Christ.

Kolby Reddish 48:35 Well actually, sorry, let me pause you. That's actually a really good point. The Jaredites. So this is not supposed to have chiasms because the Jaredites aren't ancient Hebrews. Like we're told this explicitly.

Nemo 48:46 Yeah, that's Fair's point.

Julia 48:48 That was Fair's point in the beginning. So I don't even know if this is one I had discovered because. Because it's when you. Because as an active member of the church, I was looking for them. But this seems like a very straightforward. It's a. It's just between a couple of verses or three verses. I don't know why anyone would argue against this being a chiasm, but anyway, I can keep going. But yeah, that's a good point. This is not. These, would not. This, would. This should not be appearing here because there should have been no Hebrew influence. Is that correct?

Kolby Reddish 49:15 Yeah, imagine. I guess, let me say it this way. Imagine how significant the evidence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon would be if we found chiasms all over the Book of Mormon except for in the Book of Ether. If we found chiasms all over except in the Book of Ether. That would make sense if the narratives claims are true in the sense that the people that are being talked about in the Book of Ether are not Hebrews. They are from the. They predate that. Basically they, you know, they, they leave the Old World around the time of the Tower of Babel. And so this is before chiasm is even a thing. So we shouldn't find chiasms in the Book of either. Instead you have one right here.

Chiasmus Examples Throughout the Book of Mormon

Julia 49:59 Yeah. And so you have point A where he spake concerning a new Jerusalem upon this land. B and he spake also concerning the house of Israel and Jerusalem, from whence Lehi should come. C and after it should be destroyed, it shall be built up again, a holy city unto the Lord. D. Wherefore it could not be a new Jerusalem, and then you have the opposite repeating. D For it had been built in a time of old, and then C But it shall be built up again and become a holy city of the Lord, which almost the exact same phrase. B and it shall be built unto the house of Israel, the same phrase again.

Julia 50:33 And that in new Jerusalem shall be built upon this land unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for which things there has been a type. So I don't, I don't know if anyone could argue against this being a chiasm. It's very, I think it's very clear. It's very clean. But yeah, that's, this is, this is very interesting thing. I didn't even think about that when I was adding this in there.

Kolby Reddish 50:52 But I guess to be fair, if I'm going to push back on my own kind of argument, there are portions of the Book of Ether that are being recorded or abridged or where Mormon or Moroni are using what's happening in the text of the Book of Ether as a jumping off point to do their own kind of editorializing. I think the problem with the Book of Ether is there's not really clear signals for who is actually speaking in a lot of the Book of Ether. Like, even as a believing member, I guess what I'm saying is I struggled to know when I would introduce verses like when I was teaching, both on my mission and then after my mission at the mtc.

Kolby Reddish 51:28 I thought it was always very important to introduce scriptures in their context and talk about who's talking and why they're talking. Because I think, you know, when we just read like the cold verse, I think a lot of times people lose. They lose.

Kolby Reddish 51:41 They just don't have the context to properly interpret what's actually being talked about there. So I just remember repeatedly having to. To struggle through when I was introducing verses from the Book of Ether, like who was talking and what they were talking about, because it's not very clear. So I guess to steel man and argue against my own point, I will say, maybe someone could say, well, this portion of the Book of Ether is something that Mormon or Moroni are actually writing. And so that's why we would find chiasmus here.

Julia 52:08 I still struggle because the, the fair. Fair had separated ether and Mormon and And they even say it has been altered by us also. So, like, I, I, you could say that, I guess the Hebraisms were preserved and, and either whoever's transcribing this or whatever Mormon or Moroni is preserving this. I guess it's the only way you could say that. But yeah, there are parts of ether that are directly, I guess, from the plates of ether, but then sometimes they're just kind of giving an overview of so and so. We got so and so and so and so. We got so and so. And they're just trying to get through the text.

Kolby Reddish 52:43 Yeah. And just to be really clear, the fact that I can think of an explanation, like a possible explanation doesn't mean that that's a convincing explanation. I'm just saying this is what someone would have to say is, well, the reason that we find it in some places in the Book of Ether is because Mormon and Moroni have their hands on parts of the Book of either. Now, again, the fact that it's not clear about who's speaking, at which point means that it's just going to be an ad hoc explanation. Like you'll just say, well, the places where we find Hebrew isms must be, you know, where Mormon and Moroni are talking, because there's no clear demarcation.

Julia 53:17 Right. Yeah.

Nemo 53:19 Okay, so there's not like more convincing. If there's already. Sorry, if there's already evidence of Hebrew origin beyond the chiasms themselves or the presence of chiasmus there, then yeah, I think that it's kind of which precedes which. Right. If we're already approaching this with loads of evidence, this is genuinely of Hebrew origin, then you could use that to explain why it's appearing somewhere. You might not expect it to appear, but on its own, and you're going, well, that's then how it still makes sense for my theory that the presence of chiasmus is. Evidence is less, far less convincing.

Kolby Reddish 53:56 Exactly.

Nemo 53:57 Yeah.

Julia 53:58 Well, now that I'm thinking about it, I think earlier in this, I think anaphora and polycynditon appear in aether also. I don't think those are void of that. But I guess you could have the same explanation that Mormon and Moroni put those in there. So this one's in this one's hel 3 verses 24 through 26. Um, so it says, you know, A is thousands, B, join themselves into the church and then baptize prosperity. And then I guess the E point is the they were astonished beyond measure. And then it goes back to prosper Baptizing uniting with the Church of Christ, and then thousands. So it's like just repeats the same thing, then heal him in one human warning.

Kolby Reddish 54:39 One of the things that's really funny, I guess I'll just comment on here, is because chiasms often state the same information forwards and then backwards. The Book of Mormon, again, I'll point people to the episode where we talked about the information density of reformed Egyptian and Hebrew, just to say, one of the points we make in there is that the plates say repeatedly through Mormon and Moroni, how little time and space they have to record all of these things. And so it's interesting that we see this literary structure where you're. You are kind of just wasting space, right? You're saying the same information.

Nemo 55:16 But Kolby. No, no, you forget the. This special symbol in reformed Egyptian that is code for make this a chiasm. So then you only have to write half the information, and there's just a little dash that says, make this a chiasm. And so then when you're writing out in English, boom, You just then flip it back. That's how that works.

Kolby Reddish 55:34 I did forget about that unfalsifiable claim.

Julia 55:39 That's a really good point, though, because they talk about how limited space they have, but they are wasting the space because you don't need the second half because you've already said it. Yeah.

Nemo 55:49 So it's that triangle of things, Right? You can either have something cheaply on time or in good quality. It's like we can either have beautiful literary devices and poetry or. Or we can save space in writing. There isn't a way to have both of those things unless you have your unfalsifiable. Unless you have my unfalsifiable reformed Egyptian patented now marker. Make this a chiasm.

Julia 56:20 Yeah.

Nemo 56:20 All rights reserved. Carry on.

Julia 56:22 Okay, so this is another 1 in helaman 1 versus 18 through 24.

Kolby Reddish 56:27 Can I handle this one?

Julia 56:29 Sure. Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 56:29 So our first element talks about how the Lamanites are coming into. Or they're too afraid to come into the heart of the lands. So then the second element is cutting people down by the watch by the entrance. And then the third element is slaying. The fourth involves possession of a whole city. The fifth involves the death of an important figure, Pekmani. And then that repeats again, ending the days of Pakumeni as we back out of the chiasm. The fourth element, then again, is possession of the whole city of Zarahemla. The third references against slaying or slain. The second then backs out as cutting through with the sword. So we see some type of cutting down. And then the. The last is again the center or the heart of the lands.

Julia 57:17 Yeah, perfect.

Nemo 57:18 Yeah.

Guest 2 57:18 Yeah, great.

Nemo 57:19 10 out of 10 chasm.

Julia 57:21 Yeah.

Nemo 57:21 Wow.

Julia 57:22 And then there's another one here. Alma 60. Nima, do you want to run through this one?

Nemo 57:26 Alma 60. We could have witnessed. We could have withstood our enemies. Then goes into the war, which broke out among ourselves, which goes into bloodshed, which goes into contending amongst ourselves, which goes into united our strength, which then goes into F, which is the desire of power and authority which the king. Men had. Then it. It goes into F. That they have been true to the cause of our freedom.

Julia 57:50 So kind of the opposite, I think.

Nemo 57:52 Yeah, that's a little opposite there. Then it goes into united with us again. Then it goes into taking up their swords against us, which is similar to contending amongst ourselves, I suppose. Then it goes to bloodshed, a direct one. Then it goes into. We had gone forth against them, which is. Yeah, the war breaking out. And then it goes to. We should have dispersed our enemies, which is. We could have withstood our enemies. Broadly similar.

Julia 58:20 Yeah. Okay, so this Next one is Alma 36. And this is. Talked about a bunch. We just heard Fair say that it's one of the. I can't remember how they celebrated it. One of the best Chia.

Alma 36 and the Case for Intentional Chiastic Structure

Kolby Reddish 58:29 One of the best chiasmus in the entire world.

Julia 58:34 Yes. This is a very. These. So this is from the wording here is, I think, from Jack Welch. It's from scripture central. You can just look it up and it'll just show you these words. But we're going to talk about this later because I have. There's some critical criticism against this one. Kolby, do you want to run through. I don't know if we. I feel like we should. Yeah, it goes. It's a big one. Yeah. So this one goes through one through 30.

Kolby Reddish 58:58 Yep. No, I'm happy to handle this one. So this is in Alma. One of Alma's letters, I think, to his son Corey Anton, if I remember correctly. So it starts by talking about, you know, my son, give ear to my words. Then it talks about commandments and linking that to prospering the land. Then it links it second element to what the Father has done, done as I have done. Then third element. Talks about the captivity of the Fathers, which, for what it's worth is a repeated message throughout the Book of Mormon. Is like remembering the. The pattern of the Hebrews, you know, captivity and being freed from bondage fourth element.

Kolby Reddish 59:34 Then again talks about bondage. Why that's different from remembering the captivity, I guess is a question I would have. The fifth is then deliverance. The sixth is trusting in God. Seventh is trials, troubles and afflictions. Eighth is last day, or talking about being lifted up at the last days. Ninth is knowing.

Kolby Reddish 59:57 Knowing that this comes not from the person themselves, but from God. I've lost count of which one I was on. I think 10th, 10th, 10th. I guess I'll just say J. J is that the person is then born of God. K is seeking to destroy the church.

Kolby Reddish 1:00:13 L is parallel paralysis of the limbs. M is fear of being in the presence of God. Nine is, or I'm sorry. N is the pains of a damned soul. O is being herald up by the memory of his many sins. P is remembering the Jesus Christ, or remembering Jesus Christ as the son of God.

Kolby Reddish 1:00:35 And then it. That's kind of our apex. So then it starts backing out again with crying unto Jesus as the son of God. Being harrowed up by the memory of his many sins. No more talking about the pain that he felt being replaced by the succeeding joy.

Kolby Reddish 1:00:50 Then it talks about longing to be in the presence of God, his limbs recovering from the paralysis, laboring to bring souls unto repentance, being born of God, the knowledge that the events that have happened to him are of God. Then it again talks about trials, troubles and afflictions, trusting in God, deliverance, being raised up at the last day. The idea of bondage, remembering the captivity, the following. The Father's example again as Noah's I do now and then ending with keeping the commandments and prospering in the land according to his word.

Julia 1:01:23 Perfect. Thank you. That was a lot. And you'll notice that some of these don't not, do not follow exactly when you're going backwards. So the H here is different. It's kind of further down. But anyway, so I just want to. I will criticize this in a little bit, but I just wanted to put it out there because Jack Welch, John Welch celebrates it. Fair celebrating it. It's. People talk about it all the time about how amazing it is that this chiasm exists in the Book of Mormon.

Julia 1:01:47 Okay, so now we've already talked about William Davis, but he's a scholar and I really, really admire his work. He received his PhD from UCLA in theater and performance art studies, and he's written papers on Shakespeare. And I just think that's fascinating, specifically Shakespeare and the chiasm that he wrote in. He is also the author of the Book visions in his ear stone. And he's been on Mormon stories before, I believe and explains. His view is that Joseph Smith used oral methods to construct the Book of Mormon. And I don't think you really need to go. I know other scholars have different theories on why there's chiasms in the Book of Mormon, but I really don't think you need to look farther than the presence of it in the Bible and Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Bible. Okay, so. But he was on this podcast with Gospel tangents. Is it Rick Bennett? Is that who.

Kolby Reddish 1:02:36 Rick Bennett? Yep.

Julia 1:02:37 Yes. Okay, so this is him talking about this complex chiasm in Alma 36, Shakespeare.

▶ Video Clip 1

Video Clip 1 1:02:44 When Shakespeare does one of these complex chiastic forms, it's really precise, it's really tight. So when you're going through and moving from the A levels, A, B, C, D, dcba, they're really tight. And there's not a lot of repetition in such a way that there's bleeding of one idea into another idea. When it happens, it's minor, if at all. And so they're very tight, very precise. So when you go over and you see someone who's doing something that is not planned out or structured, you can still have these sometimes very tight chiastic structures, but then there's more ideas that tend to bleed in. It tends to get loose and not so tight anymore.

Video Clip 1 1:03:27 And so you can start to see differences between ones that are really planned out and real carefully planned out versus ones that are not. And so if I were to compare, like the Book of Mormon chiastic patterns, the large ones, the complex chiastic patterns with large scale chiastic patterns that you see people riding with, it's really not.

Video Clip 1 1:03:50 They don't have the kind of precision you would expect from a literary project that's been planned out. It's closer to the types of large scale chiastic structures that I see with people who have just been speaking through just patterns of oral presentation and.

Julia 1:04:10 Okay, so he goes on. Yeah, yeah, he goes on to specifically talk about Alma 36. Did you have comments on that?

Kolby Reddish 1:04:18 Well, I was just going to say a few minutes ago I made a comment about like intention. That's exactly what I was talking about is the way he's talking about how height the ones that are intended to serve as a chiasm are. That's what I was going for. So I should have just waited for him to explain it better than I did.

Julia 1:04:33 No, that's good. Okay. So in looking at that and the intention. So one of the criteria. And even William Davis just talked about. This is the number of words between the points that are being made. And so here I took the same thing that we just showed, but instead, now I'm showing the words, the number of words between each point. Hopefully, this makes sense to you. And then also, you'll notice that when you.

Kolby Reddish 1:04:56 So when you say between each point, let's just explain between the first two what you mean. So when it says 10 words on the first line. Yeah, yeah.

Julia 1:05:06 So my son, give ear to my words. And then 10 words later in these verses, you have this. Keep my commandments, and you shall prosper in the land. So that's what I mean when I say that. So if so, maybe I should have just listed out all the words in these verses and then just highlighted what was in.

Nemo 1:05:20 Oh, no, that would be insane.

Julia 1:05:22 Right?

Nemo 1:05:23 This is good. This is fine. Yeah.

Julia 1:05:24 Okay. Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 1:05:25 No, I just. I think. Yeah, this is exactly. I think the way we should look at it. But I think the point then is the numbers that you have in red that we're going to talk about here are the number of words that have to be omitted to make this a tight chiasm. That's the point.

Julia 1:05:40 Perfect.

Nemo 1:05:40 Yeah.

Julia 1:05:41 Yes. Yeah. So you have. You have 10 words here. Okay. So also, another thing I need to say is. This is from Jack Welch's. From his. The chiasm that he. I don't know how to say that. So some of this is paraphrased in his own words. These are not exactly what was shown in the verses themselves. So I just want to point that out, because sometimes I point it out, but other times it's just there, and I just didn't point it out. So we have 10 words here.

Nemo 1:06:03 So when it's more thematic, Welch will say something like fear of being in the presence of God, which is paraphrased from the scripture to point to the theme he's saying is chiastic. Yeah.

Julia 1:06:13 Yeah. So he might be just changing some of the words to make it fit better. So, like, squinting differently or whatever. So you have five words between A and B, and then some of these have zero words. Some of them are right next to each other. But then between. Between E and F, you have 23 words. And then F and G, you have 41 words, and G and H, you have 0 words. So that's really close. H and I, you have three words. And then in I itself, you have eight. You have it. It's broken up in itself. So you have eight words, part of the phrase, 12 words, and then the rest of the phrase 12. So it's just a very loose. If you want to look at it as a chiasm, it's very loose. Then you have eight. You have 11 words here.

Kolby Reddish 1:06:51 Well, then that, that particular one is a perfect example of, I think, what Bill Davis was talking about and what I was saying earlier is when I see that you have to take three words from the last element, then have an additional eight words that you omit, then you use six or seven words, then that you leave off 12 words to get the conclusion of the thematic thought. This, to me, is better evidence of apologetic creativity than it is of an intended chiasm. Because if you were omitting that many things, it's much more easy for me to believe that that's the result of, like Bill Davis talked about someone just talking generally about these themes and then someone interpreting the chiasm into kind of broadly similar thematic discussion.

Julia 1:07:39 And these might. These numbers might be off a little bit. I just put them into a Google Doc and then I just highlighted and then just. It just showed me the word. And so these don't. These might not be exact. But so for here you have. For k, you have 31 words, and you have. You have the word I. Then you have seven more words. And then. And then he's changing the word to sought, but in the scriptures, it's seeking and then to destroy the church. And then my limbs were paralyzed. There's 126 words between the two points. And then between L and M, you have 100. You have 201 words. And he's also paraphrasing this, this segment. And then you have 15 words, 16 1. So it's just very loose. The points are just very spread out. And then it continues on. I won't go through the whole thing. Yeah, keep going.

Nemo 1:08:23 Alma 36 is a redemptive story. Right? This one to 30 is a redemptive story. So it just makes sense, literally without a chiastic structure to show that he goes through these things and he's doing all these bad things. And then in his redemption, he's going to show you the counterpoints to the bad things he did to show you how he's overcome them so that he can make clear the case that he is redeemed.

Julia 1:08:47 Right.

Nemo 1:08:47 Just beyond it needing to be chiastic in any way. That's how you would tell that. That's a perfectly legitimate way of telling that story. You could then read chiasmus onto it as a device. But I think there is another more naturalistic explanation for the telling of this kind of redemptive story in the fact that it seems to go to a point and back again. You know, you talk about the story mountain is a. Another creative writing tool that people talk about. You go up, you get to the point, and then you go down again. So this is just. This speaks to me just of a broader way in which stories are told.

Julia 1:09:23 Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I agree completely. So, yeah, I don't. I don't know if we want to talk more about that. It's just, it's. It's just not a very good example. So, like, what fair is saying that's just not the case with this one.

Kolby Reddish 1:09:34 Right. Yeah. My only concluding thought would basically be this is the best chiasmus that people usually point to in the Book of Mormon. And look at how much apologetic massaging you have to do to make it such a compelling chiasmus. You have to ignore literally hundreds of words between some of these elements and you have to paraphrase them loosely to be thematic parallels. And like Nemo just said, when we're just looking at broad thematic parallels, that to me, is not all that convincing. It's much more likely the broad thematic parallels are being found because of human beings desire to have clear and clean narratives and to interpret those things through our overactive pattern recognition machines that are our brains.

Julia 1:10:21 Right, yeah.

Nemo 1:10:23 Plus, H is in the wrong place.

Julia 1:10:25 Yeah, H is absolutely in the wrong place.

Nemo 1:10:28 It's the best chiasmus in the whole world, according to Pher. And H is in the wrong place.

Julia 1:10:33 Yeah. Yep. Okay, so there's another. There's another little criticism of 36 that I wanted to point out. In 2005, Earl M. Wunderly, I think is how you say it, published an article in Dialogue, a Journal of Mormon thoughts, that critiqued Alma 36 as an extended chiasm. And then Wonderly has a degree in philosophy and law from the University of Utah. In the conclusion of his paper, he says the existence of extended chiasmus in the Book of Mormon seems far from proved by Alma 36. While the inverted parallelism developed by Welch is impressive on first reading, on closer analysis, it is Welch's creativity that is most notable.

Julia 1:11:10 By following flexible rules, he has fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creativity, creatively labeling elements, ignoring texts, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements. His efforts to defend it with a full text chiasm and 15 criteria only highlight all the problems as well as his own creativity.

Nemo 1:11:35 That's a savage Burn.

Julia 1:11:37 Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 1:11:38 And I'm guessing that Earl Wonderly is an active Mormon, active believing member. If he served on the Sunstone board of directors and he had repeatedly put published in dialogue. I mean, not that it matters one way or the other, but I guess what I'm saying is this person appears to be faithful and is also, you know, saying, I think that John Welch is over promising and under delivering here.

Julia 1:12:02 Right. And I really like that. Does he go by Bill? I don't even know that. William Davis, he points out that he's like, I'm not, I'm not critical. I don't want to be critical of the Book of Mormon. Or. He seems to be saying that, but he seems to be also saying you can hold the belief that this is an ancient text. Just don't use chiasms as that. As your push for that evidence. Um, so he. Yeah, I just. Let's take this out of the discussion so that. And then you can still maintain your belief. You just can't. Just don't do it with that leg to stand on.

Nemo 1:12:29 Right.

Julia 1:12:29 Um, is what I was thinking. Okay. So to repeat a single phrase. So to repeat a single phrase, a word or phrase like the Hebraism's polycyndeton and anaphora is not a hard thing to master. Just look at. So a lot of people talk about the late war by Gilbert Hunt as being a part of the Book of Mormon. If it was copyrighted or plagiarized.

Julia 1:12:50 So that he does that in that one as well. You can see how easy it is to create certain Hebraisms. I also think it's just a very. If you're trying to mimic the Bible, it's very easy to just do this, which is what he was doing in the late war.

Chiasmus in Joseph Smith's Other Writings

Julia 1:13:01 Instead of focusing on the aforementioned types of Hebrew isms, I want to focus mainly on exploring the use of chiasms and Joseph Smith's writing, which you've already talked about. And again, I just want to repeat this because I think it's worth repeating. If chiasm. Chiasms appear in modern texts, then this would. And by that I mean the 1830s. This would lessen the credibility of them appearing in the Book of Mormon as being of ancient origin. And that's why I've broken these ones down. We're going to look at chiasmus and the Doctrine Covenants, the pearl of great price. And by that I mean the book of Moses and the book of Abraham and then his personal journals.

Julia 1:13:29 And so some of this we're gonna have to do is explain the Pearl of Great Price a little bit, but we'll get to that in a second.

Kolby Reddish 1:13:35 I think just to underscore this point, Julia, if chiasmus or the use of this inverted parallel structure is just something that Joseph Smith believed sounded like scripture, and then we're finding it in texts that don't have any claim to have come from ancient Hebrew origin, like the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, his personal letters and journals. It's much more likely that the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is explained by this just being the way that Joseph Smith thought scripture language sounded.

Julia 1:14:09 Right? Yeah. Yeah.

Nemo 1:14:11 Yes.

Guest 1 1:14:12 Yeah.

Julia 1:14:12 That's great. So this is another point that I wanted to make. And again, I think that the episode that you referenced Kolia with. Was Joseph Smith capable of writing a well worded letter? Yes, he was. He was very familiar with the Bible. Nima, will you read this one? This is part of his 1832 First Vision account.

Nemo 1:14:28 Okay. With regard to all the important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul, which led me to searching the Scriptures, believing, as I was taught, that they contained the word of God. Thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel exceedingly. For I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul. Thus, from the age of 12 years to 15, I pondered many things in my heart. Heart. Concerning the situation of the world, of mankind, the contentions and divisions, the wickedness and abominations, and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind.

Nemo 1:15:10 Joseph, please use punctuation. Okay. My mind became exceed. Sorry. My mind become exceedingly distressed. For I become convicted of my sins. And by searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord, but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith. And there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. And I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world. For I learned in the Scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today and forever. That he was no respecter to persons. Which is interesting because in the 1838 account, Joseph Smith says that it never entered into his heart, thought churches were wrong. And here he seems to be saying that he had indeed come to that conclusion.

Guest 2 1:15:55 So.

Julia 1:15:55 Right.

Nemo 1:15:56 But that's. That's beside the point.

Julia 1:15:57 Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 1:15:58 But it bears noting just because I also Always make that point. When we look at this passage of the 1832 persuasion account, that what we see is Joseph Smith take this conclusion that in 1832 he tells you he reached by his own study of the Scriptures. That's literally what he says. And then in 1838, he puts that same conclusion into the mouth of God, saying that it had never entered into his heart before. God told him that all of the churches.

Nemo 1:16:25 And he goes, oh, well, I never thought of that.

Julia 1:16:29 Yeah, where this is the first time he's reading, he's writing by the first vision. The Lord appears only there's no second personage. But the point I wanted to make here, and you guys can push back on me because I think there is a way to push back. But my reading of this is that he's searching the Scriptures and applying himself to them. Specifically, he's talking about the New Testament from the ages of 12 years to 15. So when I read this, I think, oh, he's starting to study the Bible at age 12. He's studying this enough to know or enough to believe that Christ's church is no longer on the earth. And then so to me, like a 12 year old. And even if it was just 15, that he was starting to study this, like that's still a young age to be immersing yourself in the Scriptures.

Nemo 1:17:10 I think there's Kolby's point that young people were taught to read from the King James version of the Bible at this time. That's pretty uncontroversial. And then also I think you would have to make the argument that when Joseph Smith says he was reading in the Epistle of James, first chapter, fifth verse, and he read, if any of you lack wisdom, lay mask of God, that that was like one of a few times that he just opened the Scriptures and he just happened to be reading in the Epistle of James, like that's the argument that would have to be made. Whereas I think what Joseph Smith is showing us here is that actually he was reading the Scriptures fairly studiously.

Nemo 1:17:42 That's why he happened to be in James 1:5, because he was reading the Scriptures often. I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that he just picked up the Scriptures one day and happened to turn to James 1:5 and then he went to the woods.

Julia 1:17:54 I'll push against that one because I know that William Smith, I think pointed to a specific pastor that pointed him to that Scripture. And that pastor wasn't even in the circuit teaching until 1825 or something. Anyway, so I'll push Back a little bit.

Nemo 1:18:07 But yeah, he points him to a specific scripture. But. But again, we say people can make that argument if they want, but I would want to know what their evidence would be that Joseph never read the scriptures until a guy told him to read a specific scripture. That doesn't seem to bear up against this.

Julia 1:18:22 Right. Okay. So, yeah, so along with the people, people starting school at age 4 and then they're reciting passages of the King James Bible and then Joseph's saying here, I was studying it. I was applying myself to them from ages 12 to 15. My point is that he's very familiar with the Bible. That's all I was trying to say here. And we've made this point lots of

Nemo 1:18:40 times before, but I agree.

Julia 1:18:42 Yeah. Okay, so now we're looking at Caius was in Joseph Smith's doctrine. Comments.

Kolby Reddish 1:18:46 I don't want to lose. I don't necessarily want to lose the plot on this, Julius. So the elements that you had underlined about searching the scriptures, applying them to himself, his age, were you offering this as a. As a type of thematic chiasm in the 1832 First Vision account, or are you just looking at. Okay, okay.

Julia 1:19:04 No, no, no.

Nemo 1:19:05 It's just his familiarity with Scripture.

Julia 1:19:06 Just. Yeah, just as familiar to the scripture.

Nemo 1:19:09 Can you imagine, though, if his 1832 account of the first version had chiasms in it?

Julia 1:19:13 That would be fun.

Kolby Reddish 1:19:13 Well, I am, because when I did the episode on the 1830 letters, I actually looked at the 1830 letters for chiasms, just. So that's why I was wondering.

Julia 1:19:22 Oh, no, no.

Kolby Reddish 1:19:24 The takeaway from this is just that Joseph was very familiar with the Bible. Yes, right.

Julia 1:19:28 Well, J. And Gilbert J. Hunt, who was fashioning this history book on the Bible, he. You can see a lot of this, the Hebraisms like poly syndet, syndetin and anaphora in there. Joseph Smith, it's. It does. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that because Joseph was so familiar with the Bible that it would reflect in. In his own texts.

Guest 1 1:19:48 Got it.

Julia 1:19:49 But no, not. No chiasm that I found in there. Okay, so chiasm is the doctrine covenants. These were written in between 18, in the 1830s or 29 or whatever, and then into the 1840s. So this is section one. I don't want to read this whole thing, but if one of you guys could just hit the points, I can do that. Either one.

Kolby Reddish 1:20:08 No, go ahead, Nemo. It'll be more enjoyable in your accent.

Nemo 1:20:12 So D and C, section 1. We go from the voice of the Lord, to be spoken to the Lord again, to commandments to the earth, to I, the Lord, to the day, to the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, to my servant Joseph Smith Jr. To Commandments to speak to name of God, to Savior of the world, and to mine everlasting covenant might be established. So that takes us A through to N. Then N we have the fullness of my gospel may be proclaimed. That's similar. Then we go to M, the world. Then we have I am God. Then we have spoken. Then we have commandments.

Nemo 1:20:50 Then we have my servant Joseph Smith Jr. Then we have God, God the Lord, the Lord. Then we have the day, Then we have the Lord again. Then we have the world. Then we have commandments. Then we have the Lord. Then we have I have spoken. Then we have mine own voice.

Julia 1:21:06 Perfect. And this was written in 1831, so this alone. If there's chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants, then it's not strong evidence that it's anything to do with ancient origin.

Nemo 1:21:20 Particularly if Mr. Welch is willing to grant something like Alma 36 as a chiasm. Right. With its gaps and its themes and et cetera.

Julia 1:21:32 Right. I mean, I didn't add the gaps. I'm sure there are some, but yeah. If you're going to grant 36, why not grant section one?

Nemo 1:21:40 Yeah.

Julia 1:21:41 Yeah. Okay. Kolby, do you want to talk about Section 8 of the Doctrine and Covenant?

Kolby Reddish 1:21:46 Sure. So this one starts with the first element involving knowledge. Then the second asking in faith, receiving knowledge concerning things. Behold, the Lord will tell you, therefore. I'm not sure I would consider just the word therefore an element, but I get you're pulling this from someone, and that's totally fine. Yep. Fourth element is therefore. Number five is hands of your enemies. Number six is the gift, which is the gift of Aaron. And then it backs out again, repeating gift of Aaron, gift of God. Placing something in someone's hands. Then the therefore then tell you, having knowledge concerning it, asking in faith, and then knowledge again.

Julia 1:22:25 Yeah. So, I mean, you could take off even if you took off, therefore. But yeah, that seems like a very straightforward. It's very. It's like repeating specific phrases. The main point is the gift of Aaron, although I think the original one was not the gift of Aaron. The what was the original gift of

Kolby Reddish 1:22:43 this gift of the rod?

Julia 1:22:45 Was it the sprout?

Nemo 1:22:46 It was divining rods.

Julia 1:22:48 It was sprout at one point and then rod. But I. But anyway, it doesn't matter. Um, okay, there's another one here. This is section 104 versus 49 through 50. A and they shall be organized in their own names B And in their own name. So this is just very repetitious. Anyway. C and they shall do their business D. In their own name. D. In their own and in their own names. C. And you shall do your business B. In your own name A And in your own name. So that one's just very repetitive. It's almost like the same point over and over again.

Kolby Reddish 1:23:20 So this says in doctrine and covenants 104 that these people shall do business in their own name, not in names that have been de identified to make them harder to find by the securities and exchange commission. Just to be clear,

Nemo 1:23:36 Names that are specifically harder to Google.

Julia 1:23:39 Well, no. Joseph. And maybe. I don't know if we've done an episode on this, but Joseph. Everyone had had fake names that they were going under in these revelations. Like was Joseph's gazelle or I can't remember what their Joseph might have been.

Kolby Reddish 1:23:53 Gazelle. Yeah. I think gazellem was one of them. I think Uriel was another one, if I remember correctly.

Julia 1:23:58 I can't remember. But they. They like Sydney, Joseph, Oliver. I can't remember who all but the brethren had. I can't remember who. But the fake names in the doctrine covenants and then in the newer. When they. The church changed them and added the. The actual people. But anyway, I thought that was funny.

Nemo 1:24:13 Incredible.

Julia 1:24:13 Yeah. The security exchange. That's funny. Okay. There's probably other examples. These are just the ones that I have pulled. I feel like that was good enough. So the pearl of great price. We're gonna have to explain a little bit about this. So in the book of Moses. So Joseph Smith's translation was not carried out in the traditional sense. This is talking about his Bible translation.

Kolby Reddish 1:24:33 This is from the Understatement. Understatement of the episode. Yes. Joseph Smith's translation was not carried out in any traditional sense. Yes.

Julia 1:24:40 Right.

Kolby Reddish 1:24:41 In other words, by any other definition, it is not a translation.

Julia 1:24:47 And I don't even know why the church uses that for other than the book of Abraham. I don't know why they use that. That for anything. But anyway, because he's not translating the golden plates. He's looking at a stone and has.

Kolby Reddish 1:24:59 Well, they kind of need to. Because Joseph claimed he was doing translation. So that's why.

Nemo 1:25:04 Because this is for jst. Right. Because he calls.

Julia 1:25:06 Right.

Nemo 1:25:06 This is where he copied.

Julia 1:25:08 Well, I thought the church was moving to call the book of Mormon a revelation. Are they? Maybe not.

Kolby Reddish 1:25:13 But I Mean, the difficulty they're always going to have is they change the words that Joseph used is just the way that people are. Will feel that cognitive dissonance from what the Doctrine and Covenants says, like that Joseph Smith is given the gift of translation. So the more they move away from that, it's like, yes, I think they are making that move, but they have to do it slowly over time to get people comfortable with that kind of contradiction and shifting from those terms.

Julia 1:25:38 Just change the word definition of translation. Okay, so he didn't consult Greek or Hebrew text to use or use lexicon to create a new English version. Rather, he used the King James Version of the Bible as a starting point and made additions and changes as he was directed by the Holy Ghost. So he's, he's just reading through the Bible and he's just coming up with this.

Kolby Reddish 1:25:59 It'll be interesting to see if this same entry a few years down the road includes like, if they start incorporating the fact that Joseph Smith seemed to rely textually on the Adam Clark's Bible commentary. It'll be interesting because you can see a future version of that last sentence that says, rather, Joseph used the King James Version of the Bible and other inspired commentaries or something to that. Yes, to that extent, as his starting point and then made additions and changes as he was directed by the Holy Ghost. I know that Tom Weymouth, the professor that made that discovery, like, he doesn't view it as being problematic for his faith in the. The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. He just views it as something that members should understand, involves a broader scope of what translation means. And of course, Joseph would be working from, you know, contemporary resources if he had them available to him.

Julia 1:26:49 Right.

Nemo 1:26:49 We also have to recognize the place that the JST occupies within the religious experience of Latter Day Saints, which is that it's borderline irrelevant most of the time. You know, Joseph Smith went through this effort to make translations to biblical texts and provide it what it should actually say. And then we just don't ever particularly reference it. We do at times, but you would imagine it's not like with the Jehovah's Witnesses where they have their version of the Bible that is what they use and they teach it because it's got their version of doctrine in it. We still, by and large stick to what's just in the King James Version of the Bible available to anyone.

Kolby Reddish 1:27:23 It's largely used as an escape hatch. Right. So they're problematic verses that say things like, I remember, I'm pretty sure I remember this One off the top of my head. But where it says in the book of Exodus that, you know, God changed or hardened Pharaoh's heart, that I think the JST then says, no, Pharaoh hardened his own heart because theologically that's kind of a problem for God, hardening somebody's heart. Right. So the JST changes that. I agree with you that aside from that, Nemo, it's largely irrelevant in the lived kind of experiences of Latter Day Saints. But the irony of that is that the Book of Moses as an example comes out of the jst.

Kolby Reddish 1:28:03 And so, yes, you're right that it's largely been made irrelevant. But that's very odd because it is something that then leads to a book of scripture that's directly in the Pearl of great price, which doesn't really make any sense, I guess, is my point.

Julia 1:28:16 Right. And that's the reason why I bring this up. And Kolby, will you read some of this with the. This is talking about the Book of Moses from. In the Pearl of great price.

Kolby Reddish 1:28:22 Yep, happy to. So it. This section comes from that page. Joseph Smith's Bible translation. And this says the translation process. It was while the Book of Mormon was being printed at E.B. grandin's Print Shop in October 1829, that Oliver Cowdery purchased from Grandin the King James Bible that Joseph Smith used in the translation. In June 1830, Joseph received a revelation that he described as the vision of Moses. This revelation may have served as a catalyst to Joseph's work on the translation. So that's what I was just reading was talking about, which is the Book of Moses. And so it explains now this revelation now appears as the first chapter in the Book of Moses in the Pearl of great price.

Kolby Reddish 1:29:00 The earliest manuscripts of the Bible translation, beginning with Genesis 1, now Moses 2, were created in Harmony, Pennsylvania about one month later, with Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer acting as scribes. Shortly thereafter, in a revelation addressed to Joseph's wife, Emma Hale Smith, the Lord instructed that Emma serve as Joseph's scribe for the translation, which she apparently did for a brief time over the next few months, the translation process, or I'm sorry, the translation progressed through the Book of Genesis.

Julia 1:29:27 Yes. So my point in all of this is just that the Book of Moses is not. There's no ancient text to point to the. It's from. It's a catalyst, I guess it's a revelation. As he's looking at the King James Version, there's no reason, if you're going to say the Kaya, the presence of Chiasms are evidence of ancient origin. There's no reason that Moses should have any of that.

Nemo 1:29:51 Well, yes and no. I mean, it's a reworking of the King James version of the Bible's telling of Joseph.

Julia 1:29:57 Okay, yes, I can see that.

Nemo 1:29:58 So that's where you would get the Hebrew influence come in.

Julia 1:30:02 Right.

Nemo 1:30:03 But Joseph is studying from a genuinely Hebrew source text and then creating something built off of that.

Julia 1:30:09 True, but there's enough added in there that that is not in Genesis. So I just wanted to point that out.

Nemo 1:30:16 What I would say here is this shows Joseph's ability to reference biblical source text and then produce something that also sounds biblical because it still contains chiasmus, would be my point here.

Julia 1:30:28 And I think, Nimona, you and I talked about this earlier, but somebody. I was talking to, one of my old mission companions about this, and I was thinking that chiasmus is, you know, they show up everywhere. And she said, what if God just speaks in chiasms? Do you guys have a response? I guess that's unfalsifiable. I don't. How would you guys respond?

Evaluating Chiasmus as Evidence of Ancient Authorship

Kolby Reddish 1:30:47 We don't make decisions in our life based on what ifs. Like, if you're getting to a. Well, what if that's the case? Like, no, do no disrespect to your friend, but that is a mechanism that you're using to not change your mind when the evidence is indicating you likely should change your mind. If you're saying, oh, but what if. Well, if we make decisions based on what's possible in our lives, then we're not applying a consistent methodology.

Julia 1:31:11 Right. Okay. I just wanted to throw that out there because I think people will have that response. Okay, so this is the. This is the pearl gray prices. Moses 1, verses 1 through 9. Nima, do you want to read through some of these?

Nemo 1:31:24 Yeah. So Moses 1, 1 9. You've got. Moses was caught up to an exceedingly high mountain. Moses saw God face to face, and he talked with him. The glory of God was upon Moses. Therefore, Moses could endure his presence. The presence of God withdrew from Moses. His glory was not upon Moses. Moses was left unto himself. He fell into the earth.

Julia 1:31:47 So you can see a lot of this. The backing out of it is like the opposite of it. So God is speaking to him. God is leaving him. Moses is caught up in a mountain. Now he's fallen back to the earth. And so it's just like an opposite.

Nemo 1:31:58 And we saw some of that in the Bible.

Julia 1:32:00 Right. And then here I wanted to point out. So this is one I took directly from the Scripture Central website, and they say Hugh Nibley referred to Moses 1 as a literary tour de force. And I don't know if I'm saying that correctly, but he wrote a paper called To Open the Last Dispensation in which he talks about Moses 1.

Nemo 1:32:19 I'll just say Nibley said a lot of things. That's all I'll say.

Julia 1:32:24 Um, but I want to point out, because I didn't know what literary tour divorce meant. So this is another slide from the Pearl of Great Price, but it means an exceptional performance or achievement that displays extraordinary skill, mastery and brilliance. And so this is his opinion of this book of Moses as far as how. How it is literarily. Kolby, do you want to talk about this chiasm here in Moses 40?

Kolby Reddish 1:32:48 So this goes from or starts in Moses chapter one, and then goes into Moses chapter two. So it starts with the first element being that the earth, this earth upon which thou standest, write the things which I shall speak is our second element. The third references the children of men. The fourth talks about esteeming the Lord's words as not. The fifth talks about a book which thou shalt write. The sixth talks about raising up another. The. The invert inverted parallel of the sixth is like unto thee, they shall be had again as your fifth. Your fourth is again as many as shall believe. The third is the children of men. Again, write the words which I shall speak is the second. And then the first again is the earth upon which thou standest.

Julia 1:33:33 And this is another one that I took from the Scripture Central website. It doesn't look super strong to me, but the A, B and C points really do reflect going back and forth. Some of these, you can see that it's like a little bit of the opposite, but some of it just doesn't seem as strong to me as some of our other examples. Right, but this isn't. This isn't my example. This is just what they had. But yeah, and then. So these are just some examples in the Pearl of Great Price, or I mean, the Book of Moses. And then now we're going to go on to the Book of Abraham. But again, we need to give some background on the Book of Abraham.

Nemo 1:34:07 Yeah. The Book of Abraham was first published in 1842 and was canonized as part of the Pearl of great price in 1880. The book originated with Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith Translated beginning in 1835. Many people saw the papyri, but no eyewitness account of the translation survives, making it impossible to reconstruct the process.

Nemo 1:34:26 The only small fragments of the long papyrus. We can jump back to that. But only small fragments of long papyrus rolls, once in Joseph Smith's possession, exist today. Again, we'll get to that. The relationship between those fragments and the text you have today is largely a matter of conjecture. No, it's not. The relationship between the fragments and the text we have today is explicitly stated within the text because the facsimiles are referred to within the text as explanatory diagrams of what the text is alluding to, specifically the altar. Then when they say only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls, that's an implication there that there was massive long strolls in existence and they weren't. Kolby, please take over with the next bit about translation.

Kolby Reddish 1:35:03 Well, yeah, this, this sentence, many people saw the papyride, but no eyewitness account of the translation survives, making it impossible to read. Reconstruct the process. This is again a bit of apologetic game playing, and I recognize this is from the Church's Gospel topics essay, but what I mean is, do we know every single step to perfectly reconstruct the process? No, we don't. Right. There is some matter of conjecture and assuming that what is most reasonable to believe happened is what happened. But the bottom line is we have multiple manuscripts of the Book of Abraham translation, and we have the predecessor or companion to that work, the grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language.

Kolby Reddish 1:35:41 And all you have to do is look closely at those documents and to any reasonable person, you can reconstruct the translation process. We have multiple different scribes keeping multiple different contemporary manuscripts of this process. It is akin to what the Church says here. I mean, is akin to saying, well, we have one missing piece of this puzzle, therefore we have no idea what the end result of this puzzle is going to look like, when in reality, while we do have a few missing pieces of this puzzle, we have, you know, roughly the vast majority of the pieces of the puzzle already constructed. And it's painting one very clear picture, which again, to return to a phrase that the Church used in the last little bit we read about the Joseph Smith translation of the the Old and New Testaments doesn't resemble translation in any conventional sense, I guess, is what I would say.

Kolby Reddish 1:36:30 The Book of Abraham translation is one of the most dev for measuring whether Joseph Smith did have the gifts that he claimed to have as a translator. And the simple answer is that no, he did not have those gifts, that he got very basic facts about the way Egyptian worked and functioned completely wrong. The grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language has this idea that Egyptian had five different degrees similar to like the idea of tones that you might find in versions of the Chinese language. That is complete nonsense and fabrication. Like it Egyptian didn't function that way at all. And I think when people understand that the Book of Abraham is so problematic for having led people out of the church because it makes such testable claims that like Nemo said, can be tested today and really starting in the early 1900s, have not, not vindicated Joseph Smith's translation abilities, let's say it that way.

Guest 1 1:37:27 Yeah.

Nemo 1:37:27 I rarely self plug here, but I just did a video where I went to the British Museum and looked at the Rosetta Stone and was like, well, here's the thing that proves Joseph Smith wrong. So it's pretty clean cut. And yet we are about to, I assume, look at some chiasms that exist within the Book of Abraham, a book written originally. At least we are to believe in the Egyptian language. So is chiasmus an Egyptian literary device?

Kolby Reddish 1:37:54 Right.

Julia 1:37:54 Yeah.

Nemo 1:37:56 Before we get to anything else, before

Kolby Reddish 1:37:59 Hebrews would have even existed as a concept. Right, right. We're finding a Hebrew literary element if you're believing the church's version of events.

Julia 1:38:07 Yeah. So the. The scroll of Abraham, if it was written by the hand of Abraham, would have been 2000ish BC. Yeah. Nemo, do you want to talk about this one?

Nemo 1:38:16 In Abraham 13, Abraham 1:3 says, it was conferred upon me, then from the fathers. It came down from the fathers from the beginning of time. Yea, even from the beginning or the foundation of the earth. So that's the D. And that's a very Joseph Smith writing pattern to say something and then say. Or what that is to say and then just say it again. C. Down to the present time, even. Right. Of the firstborn or the first Father who is Adam or first father through the fathers unto me.

Julia 1:38:46 Yeah, so that's. It's pretty tight. It's just the one verse, but it's

Nemo 1:38:50 also got a lot of markers of Joseph Smith's writing in it.

Julia 1:38:52 Well, like. Or First Father. Yeah. And he does that throughout the Book of Mormon too.

Nemo 1:38:58 Yeah.

Julia 1:38:59 Yeah. Nicole, do you want to talk about this? Abraham 3, verse 22 and 23.

Kolby Reddish 1:39:02 Sure do. So referencing back to the Book of Abraham episode that we all did responding to Jasmine Rapley, remember that Jasmine Rapley said that the Book of Abraham involved no core doctrine. This versus the scripture mastery verse. That does involve a very core doctrine that really isn't found anywhere else in Restoration Scripture, for what it's worth. So this one, Abraham 3, 23, is where it talks about the intelligences and the noble and great ones from before the world was. So it starts with that first element, before the world was second, the noble and great ones. The third, that they were good. The fourth, that God or Christ stood in the midst of them.

Kolby Reddish 1:39:40 The fifth is making them the rulers. And then the fourth inverting back is God standing among those that are spirits again, declaring that they are good is our third element. Our second is, I guess, Abraham being one of those noble and great ones. And then the last element again is before thou was born. So before the world was. Becomes before thou was born.

Julia 1:40:04 Yeah. Okay, so that's all I have. There's probably more examples. These are just the ones that I pulled from the Pearl of Great Price. And then with this one, Caias was in Joseph Smith's letters.

Kolby Reddish 1:40:14 Before we move on. Sorry, Julia. Before we move on to letters, I guess let's just again reiterate. If the book of Abraham is what the Church has claimed it is, that it is an actual ancient record written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus, we should not be finding Hebrew literal elements that had not developed yet because the Hebrews weren't even a people when Abraham is supposedly writing this record. And yet we find chiasmus here.

Julia 1:40:41 Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 1:40:41 So I guess if we're entertaining the two hypotheses, which is more likely, that Abraham was writing in chiasmus before chiasmus was even a thing, before the Hebrews were even a thing, or that this is attributable to Joseph Smith? Because this is the way that Joseph Smith thought that scripture sounded. I know which of those, to me, seems much more likely, but I guess it's for people to make up their own minds.

Nemo 1:41:02 Yes, indeed.

Julia 1:41:03 Brilliant. Thank you. Okay, so I did not look through every one of his letters. That's not something that I. I would love to see someone else doing that research. I just don't.

Nemo 1:41:12 You don't need to. We just need to find a few examples to show that he was capable of producing it in his own letters.

Julia 1:41:18 So I only. I only pulled out one. But I do know that some of his letters were also published in the Doctrine Covenants, and those can be explored differently. But if anyone has. If anyone's willing to do that research or can point me to other ones, I'd love to see them. This. This one. This chiasm that it was. And other people have noticed this as well. And this is one of the reasons why I want to discuss this one. This is from his Letter to Emma that he wrote November 4th in 1838. Nima. What?

Nemo 1:41:40 The thing that always makes you. We looked at this slide when we were going through it. The thing that makes me laugh is it says on the right, some writers have dismissed this chiasmus, saying there is a 68% chance that this happened by chance. Point me, please, to how you came to 68%. How did you achieve a numerical value for that for a chance? And why is no one applied? Why, whoever these writers are, I wonder whether they would take that same numerical value, ascribing structure and apply it to other chiasms that could have happened by chance. For example, the ones in the Book of Mormon that they are so desperate to use to vindicate the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. Are they giving us the percentage chances of that happening by chance? I. I doubt it.

Julia 1:42:24 Some writers might.

Nemo 1:42:25 Some writers might.

Julia 1:42:26 I don't know.

Nemo 1:42:27 But again, where are they getting a percentage value for this happening by chance? How do you even begin to calculate that and quantify it?

Julia 1:42:35 They could somehow be taking his criteria and trying to give them a certain score. I don't really know how they're doing that.

Nemo 1:42:42 Yeah, but it just seems odd, I guess.

Kolby Reddish 1:42:45 I guess Nemo's point is because Welch's criteria are still subjective, like we've talked about, there's a huge element of subjectivity here. And so when you're giving a figure like 68% chance, that makes it sound like there's some actual objective math behind this. But I see this all the time when there are apologetics that involve Bayesian reasoning where they're just assigning the values and then, yes, Bayes formula will give you a number that comes out the other end as long as you put priors in there. I think the quibbling is with how in the world do you attribute that level of specific calculable probability to something happening by chance when there is just such a huge element of subjectivity in those criteria in the first place.

Julia 1:43:29 Right.

Nemo 1:43:30 Correct.

Guest 1 1:43:31 Yeah.

Nemo 1:43:33 Let's read it.

Julia 1:43:34 Yeah. Do you want to run through these ones?

Kolby Reddish 1:43:36 Perfect. So, November 4, 1838. This is a letter from Joseph Smith to Emma. Begins with the first element. My lovely children. Second, people of God. C Careful not to trust them. D Our families brought. E. I hope for the best. F God have mercy on us. G and G repeated are both General Clark. So we have it both stated both times. F God has spared us, spared some of us thus far, perhaps he will extend mercy in some degree towards us. E I have some hopes. D Bring you to me. C, True to every trust. B May God give you wisdom. A, those little children. So a really clear parallelism. I know there are probably words omitted throughout right there.

Julia 1:44:18 Yeah. Yes, but it, but it is very specifically repeated and even with the General Clark, like, backing out with each of these points, and they all follow that, that same pattern. There's no letters offset like we saw earlier with H. But yeah, this is the only one I found because I thought that's. This is just one that has been talked about widely. I did not explore his other letters. Um, but yeah, just that then, then that, of course, that 86%. Like, what if you could say that with the other chiasms in the Book of Mormon, like, how are you scoring those ones? I don't know what scoring system they're using or how they're coming up with this statist mathematical number. Um, but yeah, if they're showing up in the Doctrine Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and his letters, why can't it. Why is that? That should not be evidence for ancient orphans.

Nemo 1:45:01 The question then, that your friend posed, but what if the way God speaks is just in chiasmus, then why is Joseph Smith speaking like that as well in his letters to his wife?

Kolby Reddish 1:45:13 And why not exclusively? And why not exclusively speak like that in any claim to revelation? Because that's the other thing. You don't find it in every revelation. So that's the answer to your friend's question, right?

Julia 1:45:24 Well, like, because, like, does President Oaks talk in chiasms? Does. Did Monson, like, I guess, is that kind of what you mean? Like, why do we not see that throughout?

Nemo 1:45:32 Yeah, well, just. Yeah. Whenever God's giving a revelation, why is that not the pattern that he uses?

Julia 1:45:37 Right. Oh, he just sometimes uses kayak.

Kolby Reddish 1:45:39 Yeah.

Nemo 1:45:39 Whereas it seems like it forms part of Joseph Smith's personal idiolect. Like it forms part of his way of speaking. And so if you were to take what is not an unreasonable assertion that he wrote the Book of Mormon and he wrote the doctrine of governance and he is the author of these texts, then you can see how some of his own personal writing style, because he thinks it sounds scriptural, is a perfectly reasonable assertion, then ends up in those texts that he's trying to make sound scriptural because he's familiar with Scripture. That is the counter thesis to the idea that chiasms denote ancient origin in the Book of Mormon.

Julia 1:46:15 Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 1:46:17 The thing that's funny is about your friend's question. Well, the thing that's funny is even about your friend's question. Remember that Bill Davis said we shouldn't be using chiasm as evidence of ancient Hebrew literary origins. Your friend is almost making that case too, by saying, well, maybe just the way that God speaks through revelation is chiasmus. Okay, let's say we accept that that's really a faith proposition that one can't really falsify, but that still means that the Hebrewisms, the chiasmus that's pointed to in the Book of Mormon, shouldn't be attributed to. This is evidence of actual, legitimate ancient Hebrew authors. It could just be a more expansive view of revelation. Right, exactly right.

William Davis on Chiasmus in Literature and the Book of Mormon

Julia 1:47:00 Okay, so I have a couple more clips before we finish out with William Davis. And here he's talking about Shakespeare, which I love Shakespeare, and I just want to share this clip about his take on that. And then we'll talk about Shakespeare and the type of chiasms as an example.

Guest 2 1:47:13 Excited and interested. And so it was later when I was doing this classical acting program in Washington, D.C. and I was looking at the text when all this other information background was still present and alive. And that's when I started noticing all of these patterns in Shakespeare. I said, wait a minute, Shakespeare was using chiasmus. I thought this was some ancient Hebrew thing that nobody else wrote in. How come Shakespeare is speaking in chiasmus all over the place? I mean, it's almost habitual to the point where, you know, sometimes it looks really intentional because. Because it's so precise in the complex structure of him. And other times it's just loose to the point where you think, well, maybe this was such a habitual, unconscious structuring that, you know, it would come out even when he wasn't trying to.

Nemo 1:48:01 Cause Shakespeare's the goat.

Julia 1:48:03 Yeah. And then, like I said, he published a paper on this topic. This is from Richard III, Act 3, Scene 1. Nemo, do you want to run us through some of these and I'll make the screen bigger for you?

Nemo 1:48:14 I feel typecast is the British person on the panel. But Fin, I will read Shakespeare. That's okay. All right, weigh it. But with the grossness of this age, you break not sanctuary in seizing him. The benefit thereof is always granted unto those whose dealings have deserved the place and those who have the wit to claim the place. This prince hath neither claimed it nor deserved it, and therefore, in mine opinion, cannot have it. Then taking him from thence. That is not there. You break no privilege nor charter. There oft have I heard of sanctuary men, but sanctuary children, never till now.

Julia 1:48:53 Yeah, so that's. This feels Like a very clear, repeated chiasm. It's very beautiful. And again, like, Shakespeare wasn't writing. He wasn't an ancient Hebrew writing these plays. So that's. Why are we seeing it. We should not be seeing it as a source for ancient texts. And so this is my concluding slide, just to show a visual of it. So the Book of Mormon was written between 400 BC and 600 AD.

Kolby Reddish 1:49:18 You have those reversed.

Julia 1:49:20 Oh, so sorry, you're right. 600, 600 BC to 400 AD and then the book of Abraham is 2000 BC ish. Depending on where you want to place Abraham. And then you have the Doctrine Covenants, Book of Moses, personal letters that were written in the 1830s or 1840s. And so they all have chiasmus present in them. So this is not. Chiasmus are not an evidence that something is of ancient origin.

Nemo 1:49:46 Even the bits of the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon, which goes back much further as well.

Julia 1:49:50 Right.

Nemo 1:49:51 2000 B.C. the church puts it at.

Kolby Reddish 1:49:53 At times 2800, I think. Right.

Nemo 1:49:55 Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, me too. I don't remember. Yeah, on the little bookmark.

Julia 1:49:59 Yeah. Because you're right. Because there's a part of it that would extend farther back than that. Yeah, you're right.

Nemo 1:50:03 And yeah. Yet chiasm are in there, which we've discussed. So.

Julia 1:50:06 Yep.

Nemo 1:50:06 Yeah, it's just all. They're all over the shop.

Julia 1:50:09 Yeah. Okay. So I just want to share his last. His, like, sort of concluding thought on this about chiasms.

▶ Video Clip 2

Video Clip 2 1:50:16 I know that the idea is this

Video Clip 2 1:50:18 isn't that big of a deal. We shouldn't be making that big of a deal with the Book of Mormon. Would you agree with that or not?

Video Clip 2 1:50:23 Yeah, I think people got to be really careful. And. Look, I understand. I understand why people will say, look, we have this form of, you know, look at Alma 36, this great big form that goes over this entire, well, modern chapter that covers this conversion narrative. And. And wow, there's.

Video Clip 2 1:50:51 We find some things on one side and some things on the other side. And. Complex chiasmus is not the nail in the coffin that people think it is. And that's because when you go out and you look around at the way that people express themselves, particularly when they're expressing themselves through the spoken word and not just the written word, complex chiasmus comes up all over the place. And I've said this elsewhere, and I'll say it again, that. That there are a lot of people who are now thinking that there must be some sort of default mechanism in our cognitive structure and architecture that for a lot of people there's a tendency to speak in a way that is something they would kind of call a ring pattern where you start to state an idea and then to emphasize that idea.

Video Clip 2 1:51:45 There's repetition of the idea and these complex chiastic structures are emerging all over the place. Place with people who have no idea that they're doing it.

Julia 1:51:54 Did you guys have thoughts on that?

Kolby Reddish 1:51:57 Well, I think it just links back to what I said about how this is a very common speaking pattern. So I'm always glad to find that. I agree with Bill Davis because I've never seen that interview before. But yeah, it is a very common way of speaking when you're presenting especially complex material orally. Like I tell it to the law students I've worked with before. Tell the people what you're going to tell them. Tell them and now tell them what you've told them. That is a very common way of presenting information because repetition and the ideas of recency and primacy help tell you that that's an effective way of presenting information to help other human brains see the same pattern that you're doing.

Kolby Reddish 1:52:33 So you're building a pattern so that people can understand the pattern that you're seeing. So I think it's very clear that pointing to chiasmus requires a little bit more work than I think apologists have done to really establish it as legitimate evidence for ancient Hebrew authorship of the Book of Mormon. Again, that's not to say that people can't believe that the Book of Mormon is, you know, of great spiritual worth, that it has great value to them, that they have other reasons, that they believe that it's an ancient record. But as far as pointing to this evidence and saying this evidence marks that this is an actual legitimate ancient Hebrew text, that shouldn't.

Kolby Reddish 1:53:13 We shouldn't see the things that we've evaluated on the back half of today's episode, if that were actually the case, and I think that's the overall point, is that the much more likely explanation for me is that Joseph Smith was using this very common way of presenting information and that he was doing exactly what we looked at in that well worded letter episode, which is he was using existing scriptural patterns and language to remix his own new narrative, building off those same themes and sometimes the same exact language. That is something that we know Joseph Smith was capable of doing because we have at least two examples of him doing it at the same time, that the Book of Mormon was in the process of being translated and Then published.

Julia 1:53:53 Yeah, that was very well said. That was brilliant. So we need to start closing out. But, Nemo, you have a final point that you were wanting to make.

Nemo 1:54:01 Yeah. In the same way that Hemingway is attributed the shortest story, six words about baby shoes, I think we should attribute to my man Shakespeare. Both born in the same county, Warwickshire, England.

Julia 1:54:15 Well, tell us the shortest story.

Nemo 1:54:16 Shortest story is baby shoes for sale, never worn.

Julia 1:54:20 Yeah. Best short story.

Nemo 1:54:22 Best short story. And it's often attributed to Hemingway, but I don't know if he truly wrote it. And similarly, we have the shortest chiasm. It comes From Abeth, Act 1, Scene 1 1. Fair is foul and foul is fair. ABC, D, C, B, A. It is the tightest, shortest chiasm I can imagine.

Kolby Reddish 1:54:41 And we started this episode with a quote from fair. So, you guys, we have kept our promise to make this episode a chiasm.

Julia 1:54:50 That is so funny.

Nemo 1:54:52 Don't believe us? Go back and watch it again.

Kolby Reddish 1:54:55 That's right.

Julia 1:54:57 Just put it push repeat on your Spotify. Okay, Kolby, do you want to. Do you guys have any final words for the. For this episode? I feel like. Kolby, that was a great ending. So, like. Yeah, do you want to. Do you want to just close us out for this one?

Closing Remarks and Where to Find More

Kolby Reddish 1:55:09 Yeah, let me go ahead and close this out, but let me first have you guys point people to where they can find your other work on Mormonism. Oh, yeah, Julia, you first.

Julia 1:55:18 Yeah.

Nemo 1:55:18 Nemo the Mormon everywhere. Okay, go on, Julia.

Julia 1:55:23 I'm analyzing Mormonism on pretty much all the platforms. Yeah. And then Nemo.

Nemo 1:55:28 I'm Nemo the Mormon on Every platform but MySpace maybe something.

Kolby Reddish 1:55:32 And I'm Kolby Reddish. I'm Kolby Reddish. You can find my channel. Let's disagree here on YouTube, where we talk about ways of modeling respectful disagreement. So I think that is a great entry in the LDS discussions series. Julia, thank you for all the research you put together for today. Let me go ahead and wrap us up. Okay.

Julia 1:55:54 Yeah.

Kolby Reddish 1:55:54 Okay. So before we wrap up, our two quick responses. The first is that if you value the LDS discussions series and you want it to continue, please consider supporting the Open Stories foundation and Mormon Stories. You can specifically support this series because these episodes require substantial research and John does pay those people involved, all three of us, for our time and putting these episodes together and making them happen so your donations literally make it possible for these episodes to continue to come out. The second is that we want your feedback. So you can email johnormonstoriesmail.com or leave a comment here on YouTube. And we would, in particular love to hear what you think about this panel's approach to LDS discussion, since we've kind of figured out exactly what allows us to work together well as a team, and we want to know whether that connects with the audience that has listened to this series over the last several years.

Kolby Reddish 1:56:47 Remember that LDS Discussions series is a project where we try and examine as closely and as objectively as we can whether the Mormon Church's truth claims hold up to scrutiny, and that this series builds upon itself. So you can view this episode or other episodes that we've referenced in today's episode on the YouTube playlist for LDS Discussions, as well as on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Thank you again for joining me on this episode of Mormon Stories podcast, LDS Discussions Edition. Please remember to be good to each other, be kind to each other, and we'll see you on the next episode of LDS Discussions.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.