---

Does chiasmus in the Book of Mormon prove authentic Jewish authorship, or is it just part of Joseph Smith’s efforts to mimic biblical style, which also appears in his other writings?

---

By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

In trying to establish the historicity of the Book of Mormon, some LDS writers maintain that the presence of chiasmus, a poetic style used in the Bible, points to its Hebrew origins.

Mormon apologist Noel B. Reynolds explains that “chiasmus is a peculiar and long-forgotten literary form present in the very earliest Hebrew writing as well as in other ancient Near Eastern works. In the Hebrew tradition it developed into a rhetorical device in which two sets of parallel elements are presented. The first set is presented 1, 2, 3, etc., but order of presentation is inverted in the second set, 3, 2, 1” (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1980, p. 138).

Here is an example from Genesis 9:6 showing how the elements in the first half are mirrored in reverse order in the second half:

A. Whoever sheds
   B. the blood 
      C. of man
      C. by man shall 
   B. his blood 
A. be shed

Here is an example from the New Testament, Matthew 19:30:

A. But many that are first
   B. shall be last,
   B. and the last 
A. shall be first.

An example of this from the Book of Mormon would be 2 Nephi 29:13:

A. The Jews 
   B. shall have the words 
      C. of the Nephites
      C. and the Nephites
   B. shall have the words
A. of the Jews;

A. and the Nephites and the Jews
   B. shall have the words
      C. of the lost tribes of Israel;
      C. and the lost tribes of Israel
   B. shall have the words of the
A. Nephites and of the Jews.

LDS scholars also point out that this style was not identified as chiasmus until after the time of Joseph Smith. Thus, they reason, his use of it in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it is a translation of an ancient text. However, a brief investigation shows there are other explanations.

First, this poetic style has always been in the Bible. In Joseph Smith’s day this was usually referred to as parallelism.

In the October 1989 Ensign article, “Hebrew Literary Patterns in the Book of Mormon,” there is mention of a book on Hebrew poetry, dated 1787, which discusses the poetic style of parallelisms. The term chiasmus is never used, but this book clearly shows that Hebrew poetic styles were recognized and studied even before Joseph Smith’s time.

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

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

Second, as Ostler pointed out, the Doctrine and Covenants has examples of the same pattern. Since Joseph Smith dictated the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it is not claimed that they were translations of ancient writings, obviously this pattern was part of Smith’s style. The Pearl of Great Price and Joseph Smith’s diary exhibit similar patterns.

A thesis at BYU by Richard C. Shipp, “Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications” (Masters Thesis), arrives at a similar conclusion. Although Mr. Shipp was not trying to disprove chiasmus claims in the Book of Mormon, his study shows that Joseph Smith had picked up both the rhythm of chiasmus and parallelism. In his 1832 first vision account, Joseph claimed that he had studied the Bible since he was twelve, so it is quite conceivable that he picked up this style from his studies.

In 1993, H. Clay Gorton’s book, Language of the Lord: New Discoveries of Chiasma in the Doctrine & Covenants, was published. Gorton made the surprising assertion that he “identified 225 chiasma in the Doctrine and Covenants, which reveals a density comparable to that in the Book of Mormon” (page 24). One of his examples of chiasmus is found in a revelation “the Lord” gave to Joseph Smith on April 23, 1834. While Gorton actually quotes only one verse from this revelation, we have added the next verse to put the example in perspective:

And they shall be organized in their own names, and in their own name; and they shall do their business in their own name, and in their own names;

And you shall do your business in your own name, and in your own names (Doctrine and Covenants 104:49-50).

While Gorton is convinced that at least the first verse is chiastically significant, most people would view this as an example of repetitiveness. He is convinced that the appearance of chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants proves that the revelations are divinely revealed:

Finding the chiastic form as such an intergral part of the Doctrine and Covenants has profound implications with respect to both the Doctrine and Covenants and the chiasmus itself. . . .

Since Joseph Smith could not have written the chiastic structure as an objective literary form, it would follow that the chiastic form itself in the Doctrine and Covenants was of inspired origin. . . . Recognizing the divine source of the chiastic form in the Doctrine and Covenants establishes the divinity of the subject matter of which the chiasma are a part (Gorton, Language of the Lord, pp. 25-26).

Critics, on the other hand, see the presence of chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants as another proof that it was part of Joseph Smith’s style. The logical conclusion is that Joseph Smith himself was the author of both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Third, chiasmus appears in English as well as other languages. This weakens the LDS argument that its presence signals a Semitic or divine origin.

Interestingly, even the followers of James J. Strang, rival to Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon for leadership of the LDS movement after Joseph Smith’s death, argue for chiastic structure in Strang’s book of scripture. Here are examples from the Strangite web site:

Here is a beginner’s example of chiasmus from the Book of the Law of the Lord, chapter 39, section 1, which shows good rhythm. Notice that line A parallels line A’, and line B parallels line B’:

A YE SHALL not CLOTHE YOURSELVES
   B AFTER THE MANNER of the follies of other men;
   B’ but AFTER THE MANNER that is seemly and convenient,
A’ SHALL YE CLOTHE YOURSELVES.

Here is a more complex example from the FIRST CHAPTER of the 1851 Book of the Law of the Lord, with God skillfully placed in the center of the structure:

A Thou shalt not TAKE the NAME of the Lord thy God in VAIN:
   B thou shalt not USURP dominion
      C as a RULER; for the NAME of the Lord thy God
         D is great and glorious ABOVE ALL OTHER NAMES:
            E he is ABOVE ALL,
               F and is the ONLY TRUE God;
               F’ the ONLY JUST and upright King
            E’ OVER ALL: 
         D’ he ALONE hath the RIGHT
      C’ to RULE; and in his NAME, only he to whom he granteth it:
   B’ whosoever is not chosen of him, the same is a USURPER, and unholy: 
A’ the Lord will not hold him guiltless, for he TAKETH his NAME in VAIN.

(http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm)

Chiastic structures in Joseph Smith’s writings do not prove them to be ancient or authentic any more than those in James Strang’s book prove his writings to be ancient or inspired. Chiasmus even appears in children’s nursery rhymes. Mormon writer H. Clay Gorton noted that “Fukuchi has identified the chiastic structure as an integral part of old English riddles,” and also claimed that he has discovered chiasmus in the works of Shakespeare (Language of the Lord, pp. 21- 22). Below is an example of chiasmus in a nursery rhyme:

A. Old king Cole
   B. was a merry old soul
   B. a merry old soul 
A. was he.

Confucius is another person who employed chiastic verse:

Don’t worry that other people don’t know you;
worry that you don’t know other people.
(Analects—1.16.).

Even the actress Mae West is known for her chiastic line:

It’s not the men in my life,
it’s the life in my men.

Another example of chiasmus comes from Leonardo da Vinci:

Painting is poetry that is seen rather than felt,
and poetry is painting that is felt rather than seen.

Obviously Confucius, Mae West and Leonardo da Vinci were not trained in chiasmus but had picked up the form as a rhetorical device. (Examples were taken from https://www.drmardy.com/chiasmus/book) In fact, one of the best known couplets in Mormonism could be said to be chiastic:

A. As man is
   B. God once was,
   B. as God is
A. man may be.

As one person pointed out on the Recovery From Mormonism Board, “The chiasmus ‘evidence’ is like trying to prove from a piece of music that its composer must have studied music theory. And yet there are tons of music, fulfilling the basics of music theory, produced by people who couldn’t even read and had no formal training whatsoever.”

Mormon scholars go to great lengths in their attempts to identify chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and reason that what they have found provides proof that the book must be “a product of the ancient world.” Even if chiasmus occurs in the Book of Mormon, it would not prove anything more than that Joseph Smith borrowed the chiastic style from passages found in the Bible. Some of the chiasms that H. Clay Gorton and Richard C. Shipp have identified in Joseph Smith’s Doctrine and Covenants seem to have been inspired by biblical texts. For example, on page 74 of his book, Gorton refers to Doctrine and Covenants 29:30:

2] that the first
   1] shall be last
   1] and that the last
2] shall be first

The source of this is clearly the words of Jesus found in Matthew 19:30:

But many that are first shall be last;
and the last shall be first.

Both Gorton and Shipp refer to Doctrine and Covenants 101:42:

2] He that exalteth himself  
   1] shall be abased,
   1] and he that abaseth himself
2] shall be exalted. 

This chiasm was borrowed from the King James Version of the Bible, Matthew 23:12:

And whosover shall exalt himself shall be abased;
and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Joseph Smith is credited with many words he actually borrowed from others. Gorton, for example, refers to the Doctrine and Covenants 74:1 on page 65 of his book:

2] For the unbelieving husband
   1] is sanctified by the wife
   1] and the unbelieving wife
2] is sanctified by the husband

Those who are familiar with the Bible will recognize that this comes from the writings of Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:14:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

The reader will notice that Gorton has not used the last ten words which we have shown in italics. Joseph Smith plagiarized the entire passage from 1 Corinthians 7:14, including the last phrase.

As explained above, the Book of Mormon is filled with material taken from the King James Bible. It should be obvious, then, that a great deal of material attributed to Joseph Smith was actually lifted from the Bible. In his article, “Hebrew Literary Patterns in the Book of Mormon,” Mormon Hebrew scholar Donald W. Parry cited an example of synonymous parallelism in the Book of Mormon:

Abinadi, for example, underscores what the Resurrection does for us by pairing two phrases that echo each other (Mosiah 16:10):

Even this mortal shall put on immortality,
and this corruption shall put on incorruption.

(Ensign, October 1989, page 59)

While this may seem impressive at first, when we carefully examine the passage, we see that it has been taken from the writings of Apostle Paul:

For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality.
(1 Corinthians 15:53)

It is obvious that although the wording has been twisted around by Joseph Smith, most of the words are identical.

On the next page, Parry gives an example of “contrasting ideas” which he found in 2 Nephi 9:39:

Remember, to be carnally-minded is death,
and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

This should be compared with Paul’s statement in Romans 8:6:

For to be carnally minded is death;
but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

As in the previous example, Joseph Smith has slightly reworded Apostle Paul’s statement. The extensive plagiarism from the King James Version of the Bible in the Book of Mormon would need to be factored into any study of chiasmus. We believe that much of the claimed chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon is merely evidence of Joseph Smith’s repetitive style of writing and plagiarism.

Our examination of the Book of Mormon shows that Joseph Smith frequently repeated phrases, thoughts and even stories throughout his work. Toward the end of the 19th century, Mormon critic M. T. Lamb noticed that “the prevailing style of the Book of Mormon is so verbose, so full of inelegant and uncalled-for repetitions, that any ordinary writer can greatly excel it—often reducing its wordy sentences to one-half, and one-third, and even one-fourth their present compass without any sacrifice of thought or force or beauty . . .” (M. T. Lamb, The Golden Bible; or The Book of Mormon, Is It From God? 1887, p. 27).

Considering the effort needed to make the original gold plates of the Book of Mormon and then to engrave them, one would expect a scribe to be as concise as possible, not wordy. Nephi’s brother, Jacob complained:

I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates.
(Jacob 4:1)

However, lengthy sentences abound in the Book of Mormon. Here is just one example:

And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record—for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity—And now it came to pass, if there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time, the thirty and third year had passed away; And the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Lamanite, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land.
(3 Nephi 8:1-3)

One could more easily imagine such long, rambling descriptions coming from someone spontaneously dictating to a scribe (as Joseph evidently did) than from someone painstakingly engraving each word of a long historical record. Since Smith was supposedly translating Mormon’s abridgement of the extensive history of his people, such wordy sentences become even more problematic.

B. H. Roberts, president of the LDS First Quorum of the Seventy and assistant church historian, made these revealing comments concerning repetition in the Book of Mormon:

Having seen how strong parallelism obtains between Jaredite and Nephite peoples in the matter of their migration, and their movements after arriving in the promised land, it remains in somewhat the same manner to show that a like sameness of repetition or parallelism obtains among the Nephites at different periods showing the same limitations, and leading to the same conclusions respecting the authorship of the Book of Mormon. (Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B. H. Roberts, Signature Books, 1985, p. 264)

. . . . I shall hold that what is here presented [concerning various accounts of Anti-Christs in the Book of Mormon] illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history . . . (Ibid., p. 271)

[Bold in quotations is added for emphasis and does not appear in originals.]

Since Joseph Smith was so repetitive in his style, using the same thoughts and phrases over and over again, Mormon scholars who search long enough are certain to find these recurring elements in an order which they consider to be chiastic in nature. In 1981, Mormon scholar John W. Welch published a 353-page book entitled, Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis. In this book, there is a section on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. John S. Kselman, Associate Professor of Semitic Languages at the Catholic University of America, made these observations about Welch’s work in a review published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought:

In the introduction . . . John Welch . . . describes chiasmus as “the appearance of a two-part structure or system in which the second half is a mirror image of the first, i.e., where the first term recurs last, and the last first” (p. 10). An example of this simplest form of chiasmus is found in Isaiah 22:22:

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut,
when he shuts, no one shall open.

The balance and inversion that mark the last two lines above are chiastic and can be represented schematically as AB/ /BA. . . .

Another paper of particular interest to me . . . is the editors’ contribution on “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon” . . . The instances of chiastic arrangements of material, particularly in the early parts of the Book of Mormon, are set out with clarity and with an admirably non-apologetic tone. As a non-Mormon, I would draw different inferences from the evidence, a possibility that Welch allows for, both at the beginning and at the end of this article. In evaluating this contribution, it seems to me that the point Welch makes (i.e., that the presence of chiastic structures in parts of the Book of Mormon indicates their status as ancient scripture) is weak, or at least is explainable in other ways. After all, if one wants to repeat a list of items not haphazardly, but in some sort of order, there are only two ways to do it: by mirroring the first instance (ABCD = ABCD), or by reversing it (ABCD = DCBA). (“Ancient Chiasmus Studied,” by John S. Kselman, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 17, No. 4, Winter 1984, p. 147)

Chiastic structures are often used as a way to emphasize a point. For instance, Frederick Douglass’ statement “If black men have no rights in the eyes of the white men, of course the whites can have none in the eyes of the blacks” could be seen as a chiasmus (Frederick Douglass, “An Appeal to Congress for Impartial Suffrage,” January 1867). It is often used in speeches, the most famous probably being John F. Kennedy’s statement, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country” (January 20, 1961, Presidential Inaugural speech).

Ross Anderson has provided the following summary of the chiasmus issue:

No one disputes that chiasm appears in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 41:13-14). But does this reflect a Hebrew basis of the text? After all, chiasm is not unique to the Hebrew language. Any time a reciprocal relationship or action is described, or a series of items is repeated in reverse order, chiasm will result. The common phrase, “A place for everything, and everything in its place,” is a chiasm. Thus chiasm can arise by coincidence.

Moreover, Joseph Smith’s familiarity with biblical language could account for chiasm occurring in his writings, whether intentionally or not. This explains why chiasm crops up in Smith’s writings outside the Book of Mormon. Let me give just one example, from Doctrine and Covenants 3:2.

A1 : For God doth not walk in crooked paths,
   B1 : neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left,
   B2 : neither doth he vary from that which he hath said,
A2 : therefore his paths are straight . . .

A cursory reading of the Doctrine and Covenants reveals other passages that have elements of chiasm, such as Section 6:33-34 and Section 43:2-6. Since these passages are neither ancient nor Hebrew in origin, they diminish the relevance of chiasm in the Book of Mormon. (Ross Anderson, Understanding the Book of Mormon, Zondervan, 2009, pp. 73-7)

---

---

---