Replies

>>Incidentally, there are Mormons who've noticed that chiasms appear in Smith's other
>>writings. The particular author I linked to doesn't seem to get that if Smith wrote like
>>that, it doesn't count for ancient authorship.

Um, these are writings he wrote later, after the translated the BOM, so he might have learned something but you wouldn’t give that any credence huh? Maybe he read the scriptures so much that he just started thinking that way, nah. Same author? Nah, Was Joseph Smith even aware they are there? Did he ever talk about it? (There is no evidence … http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=465 ) But hey, “Truth” is only irrelevant to ignorant Mormon’s.

As my father told me, “figures don’t lie, but liars do figure, so always go over the figures your self.” My dad is a wise man; I’ve caught a lot of “mistakes” that way.

BTW, your blog comes up blank for me, no funning, I’d check eBlogger from another computer, or try using ( http://www.anonymizer.com/consumer/products/anonymous_surfing/affilindex.html?id=AFC-QW6867330054 ) to go look at it, and see if it comes up right (I use it to check stuff I’ve posted, I have found stuff I messed up that way). I’ll just take your word that you that you knew what Chiasms are.

So, How exactly do you account for Joseph smith who never mentioned it to anyone as far as the records we have say, know about them?

We can set here and argue up and down, left and right, but what it boils down to is faith. Either you have a faith building experience reading the BOM, or you don’t. I did, others say they didn’t.

“In questioning Deity, any response is significant” – The Analects of Confucius