Chiasmus

Introduction

Language isn’t just a tool for communication—it’s a structure through which we organize our perceptions of reality. And one of the most fascinating and sophisticated structures within language, particularly in ancient semitic texts, is chiasmus.

Chiasmus is a mechanism that demands we engage with texts in a non-linear way, forcing us to confront the idea that meaning is often layered, symmetrical, and, in many cases, deliberately hidden from the casual observer. This suggests that ancient writers weren’t simply recording events—they were encoding wisdom in a way that required intellectual effort to uncover. And that implies something significant: namely, that truth isn’t always obvious.

Chiasmus does something remarkable—it mirrors meaning. It creates an internal reflection within the text, reinforcing central themes while subtly guiding the reader toward deeper comprehension. This is a deliberate invitation to think differently, to move beyond superficial interpretation, and to wrestle with complexity.

Chiasmus is a literary structure that appears not only in biblical texts but also in the Book of Mormon, in Mesoamerican inscriptions, and within the broader academic landscape of the early 19th century. That raises fascinating questions about historical transmission, about textual authenticity, and about the nature of sophisticated composition in cultures often dismissed as primitive.

This is an engagement with the very foundations of how meaning is structured and transmitted across time. And if we fail to recognize that, we risk missing out on something profound—something that could fundamentally reshape our understanding of history, of literature, and even of truth itself.

The frequent use of chiasmus provides one of the most fascinating among literary evidences for the Book of Mormon’s antiquity.

What is Chiasmus?

Chiasmus is a form of parallelism used as a poetical structure in some ancient writings from the Middle East and Greece.₁ Chiasmus is an ancient literary structure that arranges ideas in a mirrored, parallel form (A-B-C-D-C-B-A), although there is no minimum or maximum number of points required to be made for it to be a chiasmus. Found in Middle Eastern and Greek texts, it emphasizes central themes or turning points. The term originates from the Greek letter chi (X), symbolizing the mirrored pattern.

Chiasmus links literary structure with thematic meaning, emphasizing topics and principles, usually found in the center of the chiasmus.

Chiasmus enhances the aesthetic quality of the text, showcasing the authors’ literary artistry and creativity.

Chiasmus can emphasize esoteric or encoded implications once the literary structure is revealed, offering readers the opportunity to uncover hidden layers of meaning, fostering a more intimate and personal relationship with the text.

An example of a very simple chiasmus is the opening phrase in the Mother Goose rhyme, “Old King Cole”:

      Old King Cole

              was a merry old soul,

              And a merry old soul

        was he [Old King Cole]

The text makes a series of points, then once the main point, or emphasis, is shared, it continues by making the same series of points in reverse order.

Chiasmus in the Bible

A simple example is found in Psalm 124:7:

        We have escaped as a bird

            From the snare of the fowlers

             The snare is broken

       And we have escaped.

A longer example of chiasmus is found in Leviticus 24:13-23.

There are many more notable chiasmus examples in the Bible.₂ Here are several:

·         Genesis 6:10–9:18 (including a numerical mini-chiasm)

·         Genesis 17:1–25

·         Genesis 32:1–31 (including a name-changing mini-chiasm)

·         Genesis 37:3–11, 12–36, 38:1–30, 39:1–23, 40:1–23, 41:1–57, 42:1–38

·         Deuteronomy 8, 9:6-13, 12:1-32, 22:13-29, 28:20-48

·         Joshua 1

·         2 Kings 22:1-23:30

·         Job (possibly the entire book)

·         Psalms: 3, 12, 18, 19:1, 22, 37:1-7, 46, 49, 52:1b-5a, 58, 62, 67, 70, 72:1-2, 76, 89:27-39, 103:1, 150

·         Proverbs 1:20-33, 10:15, 11:19-20, 26:10-19, 31:10-31

·         Song of Songs (the entire book)

·         Ecclesiastes 11:1-12:2

·         Isaiah 1:18, 1:21-26, 2:3-5, 3:1-8, 5:20, 6:10, 28:15-18, 56:1-8, 56:9-12, 59:1-3a, 60:1-3

·         Jeremiah 5:1-31, 10:1-11, 17:1-3

·         Daniel 2:26-30

·         Hosea 13:14

·         Amos 2:11-12, 5:1-17, 5:24, 8:11-9:15[2]

·         Obadiah 10-14[2]

·         Haggai (the entire book, consisting of two chiasms)

·         Matthew 5:3-10 (The Beatitudes), 7:16-20, 19:30, 23:12, 23:16-26, 13:10-19

·         Mark (possibly the entire book), 1:1-13, 1:21-28, 2:1-3:6, 2:27, 3:20-35, 3:22-30, 5:1-6, 8:35-38, 10:17-31, 10:29b-31, 10:35-41, 11:9b-10, 12:28-34, 12:35-37, 12:38-40, 13:4-23, 13:24-27, 13:4-37

·         Luke 1:68-79, 4:16b-20, 16:13, 22:42

·         John 5:19-30, 17:1-5

·         Acts 2:1-21, 2:22-36

·         Romans 2:5b-11, 8:38-39a, 10:9-10, 11:33-35, 14:13-23

·         1 Corinthians 1:19-29, 7:20-24, 11:3-11, 13:8-13, 15:1-20, 15:35-44

·         Galatians 2:16, 3:5-14, 4:1-7, 5:16-26

·         Ephesians 1:2, 6:23-24, 2:8-9, 2:11-22, 3:1-13, 3:14-21

·         Philippians (possibly the entire book), 1:15-17

·         1 Thessalonians 1-2, 5:23

·         2 Thessalonians 3:6-12

·         1 Timothy 3:16

·         Titus (the entire book)

·         Philemon (the entire book)

·         Hebrews 12:1-2

·         James (the entire book)

·         1 John 3:9[2]

·         2 John (the entire book)

·         Jude (the entire book)

·         Revelation 1:4-8, 1:4-3:22, 3:7, 12:1-17, 14:9-11, 21:1-5

Presence of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

The presence of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon was first discovered in 1967 by John W. Welch₃ and has since been researched extensively. David W. Perry has identified 292 examples of the poetic form that he labels extraordinary.₄

The discovery of the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is a powerful indicator of the record’s antiquity as an ancient Semitic record.₅ Making this evidence even more interesting and compelling, the same literary structure has now been identified in pre-Columbian America.₆

The Book of Mormon’s abundant use of rich and complex chiasms is convincing evidence that the Book of Mormon is, at the very least, an ancient record of Semitic origin since it was translated and published in 1829, and it is unlikely that knowledge of chiasmus was known among New Englanders in the early 1800s.

The presence of chiasmus, in general, demonstrates that the given text is not random but is instead carefully organized. Lengthy and intricate uses of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon reveals the Book of Mormon’s complexity, proving that the Book of Mormon is a product of intentional literary skill and purpose, challenging critics who might dismiss it as simplistic, naïve, or unsophisticated.

The sophisticated use of chiasmus points to the training and care of the authors. It aligns with claims in the text that figures like Nephi and Enos were educated in the “language of their fathers” (1 Nephi 1:1–2; Enos 1:1). This challenges the notion that Joseph Smith, with his limited education, could have independently created such literary complexity.

Chiasmus usage varies by author in the Book of Mormon, reflecting distinct styles and purposes. For example, King Benjamin’s classical approach contrasts with Alma the Younger’s personal and creative use, reinforcing the claim of multiple authors to the text. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely the Book of Mormon was written by one author.

Changes in chiastic patterns across generations suggest historical developments and cultural cycles within Nephite society. These shifts mirror broader civilizational dynamics like war, renewal, and creativity.

Chiasmus likely served practical purposes, aiding memorization and emphasizing key teachings in a society dependent on oral tradition. This insight ties literary form to Nephite educational and cultural practices.

The presence of chiasmus aligns with ancient Israelite literary traditions, bolstering the Book of Mormon’s claim of Israelite roots. Comparative examples, such as Alma 41:13–15 and Leviticus 24, highlight similarities.

The intricate chiastic structures are improbable products of Joseph Smith’s environment or 19th-century Western writing, which valued linear writing over repetition. The lack of access to resources discussing chiasmus strengthens the argument against modern authorship.

Examples of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

Alma chapter 36 presents a beautiful example of Chiasmus.

Another intriguing example of chiasmus occurs in Helaman 6:7-13.₇

      A. And behold, there was peace in all the land,

            B. [Freedom of travel and trade in both lands is discussed]

                  C. And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the

                        D. Lamanites and the Nephites;

                              E. and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals,

                                    F. both in the land south and in the land north.

                                        G. Now the land south

                                               H. was called Lehi, and

                                                      I. the land north

                                                           J. was called Mulek,

                                                                L. which was after the son of Zedekiah;

                                                                L. for the Lord

                                                            J. did bring Mulek

                                                      I. into the land north,

                                                H. and Lehi into

                                          G. the land south.

                                    F. And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and

                              E. of silver, and of precious ore of every kind;

                        D. and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore

                  C. and did refine it; and thus they did become rich.

           B. [Economic prosperity in both lands is discussed]

      A. And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace.

The chiastic turning point centers on a sophisticated equivalence between the words “Lord” and “Zedekiah.” This connection is especially significant because the “-iah” suffix in Zedekiah represents the Hebrew word for “Lord” (yah), which is also the first portion of the divine name Jehovah/Yahweh. This linguistic feature suggests that the chiasm would have been even more apparent in its original language (potentially Hebrew or another Semitic root language) than in the English translation, providing an intriguing clue about the Book of Mormon’s original language.₈

Arguments Against the Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as Convincing

Critics of the Book of Mormon often point to chiasmus in works like Shakespeare and Mother Goose rhymes to argue that since these non-ancient texts contain chiasmus, its presence in the Book of Mormon doesn’t prove ancient origins. However, this argument fails to account for crucial differences in complexity and intentionality.

Let’s examine Shakespeare’s chiasms:

1. “Fair is foul, and foul is fair” (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1)
2. “The hand that hath made you fair hath made you good. The goodness that is cheap in beauty makes beauty brief in goodness” (Measure for Measure, Act 3, Scene 1)
3. “Who dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves” (Othello)
4. “All the schoolchildren were cruel. Killing ants, pinching legs, and stomping on flowers were the favorite habits of the children”
5. “Adam, first of men, To first of women, Eve” (Paradise Lost – while not by Shakespeare, this example illustrates the device)
6. “But shall I live in hope? All men I hope live so” (Richard III)

It is interesting to note that Shakespeare’s chiasms are typically only 2-3 elements long, and likely accidental. John Welch theorizes that these are perhaps “…part of the intellectual subconsciousness…”₉

Even in cases where Shakespeare employs longer chiastic structures, such as in “Othello,” they remain thematically shallow:

1. Othello’s love for Desdemona
2. Iago plants seeds of doubt
3. Othello’s growing suspicion
4. The climax of jealousy and murder
5. Othello’s realization of his error
6. Iago’s deceit is revealed
7. Othello’s reaffirmation of love for Desdemona (in death)

While this structure spans multiple acts and scenes, it’s “a mile long but an inch deep” – following only basic plot progression rather than demonstrating the intricate word-level complexity found in Book of Mormon chiasmus.

This distinction is further supported by Carl J. Cranney’s research. His analysis of 20 texts covering nearly 900 verses in the Book of Mormon revealed that parallelistic structures appear most frequently in sermons – exactly where they would be expected in ancient Hebrew literature. As Cranney concluded,

“Not only do parallelistic structures exist in the Book of Mormon (deliberate or not, Parry has demonstrated their existence), they also significantly occur precisely where they contextually should occur and are absent where their presence would be surprising. The results of this analysis clearly indicate that these parallelisms are not accidental. If the parallelisms were accidentally generated, we would expect them to show up randomly. They do not.”₁₀

This evidence suggests that Book of Mormon chiasmus exhibits both greater complexity and more deliberate placement than examples found in Shakespeare or other non-ancient sources, making it a more compelling indicator of ancient origins.

Chiasmus in Mesoamerican Texts

Other texts from antiquity were written in chiastic form. The Mesoamerican Chilam Balam of Chumayel, like Helaman 6, not only focuses chiastically on the migration of the people into the land they now occupy, but similarly features, at the center, a word-play on the land’s name, as J. E. S. Thompson has noted.₁₁

The original:

1. was composed prior to 1575
2. was written in Mayan and the original text is available
3. was authored by a member of the ruling lineage
4. contains internal evidence of having been based on a pre-Columbian codex
5. includes significant references to pre-Spanish mythology and religion
6. is free of notable Christian or European influence.

Two-, three-, and four-line chiasms are numerous in these texts, but longer, complex examples are also evident. For instance, the initial section of the Popol Vuh, dealing with the creation of the world, is arranged as a chiasm. Each phase of creation is given in detail from primordial darkness to the formation of the mountains. For example:

      A Oh Heart of Heaven,

            B and once it had been created,

                  C the earth,

                        D the mountains and valleys,

                              E the paths of the waters were divided

                                  F and they proceeded to twist along

                                  F among the hills.

                             E So the rivers then became more divided

                        D as the great mountains were appearing.

                    C And thus was the creation of the earth

                B when it was created by him

          A who is the Heart of Heaven.

The final portion of the section then recapitulates the main events in reverse order.₁₄

The Annals of the Cakchiquels involves a seven-element chiasm incorporating two subordinate chiasms inside it.₁₅

Most early colonial native texts did not use chiasmus. Those that did all contain passages of dialogue, indicating a dependence on a pre-Columbian codex. Interestingly, none of the highland Maya documents composed after 1580 included chiastic passages. Christenson argues that this is evidence that chiasmus had a distinct history as a learned poetic form among these people before the Conquest.

Many implications of Christenson’s work remain to be explored. The late Sir Eric Thompson once said, “There are close parallels in Maya transcriptions of the colonial period, and, I am convinced, in the hieroglyphic texts themselves, to the [two-line parallel] verses of the Psalms, and the poetry of Job,” but when chiasmus proper was drawn to his attention in 1970, he could point only to brief hints of it in the native texts.₁₆ The work by Christenson focuses new attention on Mesoamerican poetic form with the possibility of further breakthroughs.₁₇

Allen J. Christenson has completed a substantial paper in this regard, investigating thirty-seven native Mayan texts. After reading the manuscript, renowned expert Munro Edmonson said, “It is rare to encounter this kind of dedication and clarity in academic work.”

How Much Was Known about Chiasmus in 1829 When the Book of Mormon Was Published?

The history of chiasmus recognition in biblical scholarship presents an intriguing timeline relative to the Book of Mormon’s publication. This literary device was first identified in biblical texts in the early 1800s, with scholarly understanding emerging gradually.

Significant developments in chiastic studies occurred in:

1. 1742: Johannes Albertus Bengel briefly identified chiastic patterns in the bible, but had little influence.
2. 1753: Robert Lowth published Latin notes focused on parallelism but overlooking chiasmus.
3. 1820: John Jebb provided the first systematic analysis of chiastic structures in the bible.
4. 1820s: Thomas Boys expands study to broader biblical compositions
5. 1825: Thomas Horne’s “An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures” briefly mentions chiasmus
6. 1854: John Forbes attempts to reignite interest in chiasmus

Despite these scholarly advancements, there’s no direct evidence Joseph Smith knew about chiasmus in 1829. “Since no library existed within that region of the Susquehanna Valley, one cannot assume that Joseph Smith would have had access to any of the British books that in the 1820s were beginning to comment on various forms of parallelism in biblical literature. None of those books were published in the United States, and it is only remotely possible that one or two of them made their way to the United States in Joseph Smith’s lifetime. No definite listings of the titles by John Jebb or Thomas Boys have been found in any American libraries before 1829. And even if Joseph Smith had somehow learned of the concept of chiasmus, he would still be presented with the formidable task of writing-or rather, dictating-extensive texts in this style that was unnatural to his world, while at the same time keeping numerous other strands, threads, and concepts flowing without confusion in his dictation. The low probability that Joseph Smith was conscious of chiasmus in any respect tends to enhance its evidentiary value as an indicator of other origins (presumably Israelite) for this aspect of the book’s style.”₁₈

Smith acquired Horne’s treatise in 1834, years after the Book of Mormon’s 1829 publication. Comprehensive scholarly study of biblical chiasmus only gained significant momentum after 1830.

This chronological context makes the sophisticated chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon remarkable. At the time of its translation, knowledge of this ancient Hebrew literary device was still nascent within biblical scholarship, largely confined to academic circles Smith had no documented connection to.

The presence of complex, well-structured chiasmus in the Book of Mormon thus represents an intriguing element warranting careful consideration in discussions about the text’s origins.

 The probability that Joseph Smith was familiar with the literary structure known as chiasmus in 1829 is very low. There is no evidence to suggest that the works of scholars like John Jebb or Thomas Boys, who discussed chiasmus, had reached America by the 1820s. Moreover, Smith did not acquire Thomas Hartwell Horne’s “An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” which briefly mentions chiasmus, until 1834, well after the Book of Mormon was published. Examination of Smith’s copy of Horne’s book shows no signs of it being read, further diminishing the likelihood that he drew inspiration from this source. Even if Smith had read about chiasmus, his understanding would have been superficial at best, given the limited nature of the discussion in Horne’s text.

The chiasms found in the Book of Mormon differ in style and complexity from those discussed in contemporary scholarship of the time. It’s highly improbable that Smith independently discovered chiasmus through his study of the Bible, especially considering the complexity involved in creating such structures while dictating the Book of Mormon.

If Joseph did learn of Chiasmus during his life, he apparently did not recognize it within the Book of Mormon, if he did, no mention of it is recorded. Had Joseph had recognized Chiasmus within the text or intentionally dictated it in himself, he likely would have been anxious to share that knowledge as evidence of its historicity.

Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance?

Brent Metcalfe argued that the chiasms in the Book of Mormon might be creations of later interpreters rather than intentional structures by the original author. Others have suggested that these charismas result from the book’s repetitive nature.

Please note that chiasmus can occur by chance, and often does. Just because one can pick out a few words in a passage that find a chiastic order does not mean that the author was consciously crafting chiasmus. There is a huge difference between a compact, extensive, meaningful chiasmus such as Alma 36 and an accidental one found in a random text, just as a few random splashes of paint spilled on a canvas are in a different category than, say, the Mona Lisa. 

To help determine if chiasms were intentional, John Welch outlined fifteen criteria in 1988 including, but not limited to:

• Objectivity: How clearly paired elements relate to each other.
• Boundaries: Whether the passage stands as a distinct unit in the text.
• Centrality: The significance of the chiasm’s focal point.

• Length: The number of chiastic elements.
• Reduplication: The presence of repeated nonchiastic elements (those not part of the chiasm structure).

Boyd and Farrell Edwards conducted a mathematical study to assess this.₁₉ They used statistical methods to differentiate between intentional design and random occurrence by:

• Identifying repeated elements.
• Counting opportunities for chiastic structures.
• Calculating the probability (P) of these structures forming by chance.

Their findings were profound but not surprising to believers of the Book of Mormon. Alma 36 from the Book of Mormon has an extremely low probability (P=0.00018) of being accidental, suggesting deliberate design. Four major chiasms in the Book of Mormon (like Alma 36 and Mosiah 5:10–12) have a P≤0.020, supporting intentional composition. In contrast, certain chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants and a letter from Joseph Smith to Emma show higher probabilities, indicating randomness.

For simple chiasms (each element appears twice), the probability (L) of random formation decreases as the number of elements increases.

Complex chiasms need Monte Carlo simulations to estimate L, accounting for repeated or overlapping elements.

The study confirms that strong chiasms in the Book of Mormon and parts of the Pentateuch were likely intentional. However, this does not conclusively prove the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins but does provide a framework for literary analysis combining statistical methods with traditional approaches.

Alternative Explanations

The presence of these intricate literary patterns within the Book of Mormon is extremely remarkable. While some dishonest critics may attempt to downplay them, while others wish to ignore them, Loftes Tryk observes, “Even a very high native intellect would not account for a computer-like selection of images which have been fitted into the story with such knife-edge precision. The closer we examine the Book of Mormon’s literary character, the greater burden will be placed on the theory of an unaided creation. There are too many complex uses of symbolism and of sophisticated literary form in it.”₂₀

Confronted with this literary sophistication, Tryk argues that the only reasonable explanation is supernatural origin—which he surprisingly attributes to Satan. This claim is not just wild; it’s a deflection from the text’s profound message.

Consider the central message of Alma 36, perhaps one of the most complex and beautiful chiasms found within the Book of Mormon

        I. And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul.

            J. And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins,

                K. behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

                K. Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me,

           J. who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

        I. And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more;

The entirety of this chapter, Alma 36, is written in chiastic form, it focuses our attention on Christ’s redemptive power. As Tryk himself admits, these chiasms are “a formidable piece of writing,” perhaps “unequaled in brilliance anywhere else in literature.” The question must be posed; If the chiasmic forms found within the Book of Mormon are of supernatural demonic origin, why would they testify so boldly of Jesus Christ and the redeeming nature of His atonement?

The Book of Mormon is more than just a text; Its chiastic structures invite readers to look beyond surface-level reading, to question, analyze, and explore. As Jeff Lindsey has said: “What honest Christian can help but rejoice to see the forgiving power of Christ so beautifully taught and so majestically crafted into poetry?”₂₁

Conclusion

When considering the significant amounts of research and evidence regarding Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and the ancient world. The Book of Mormon emerges not as a nineteenth-century fabrication, but as a carefully prepared ancient text—created by prophets who understood both their time and ours. Chiasmus isn’t just a linguistic curiosity; it’s a key that helps unlock a profound, Christ-centered message.

1. Chiasmus in Antiquity, Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981, as cited by J. Welch, “Chiasmus in Alma 36,” FARMS Working Paper WEL-89a, Foundations for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Provo, Utah, 1989
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure
   • https://biblicalchiasmus.wordpress.com
   • https://rsc.byu.edu/preserved-translation/chiasmus
   • https://deeperchristian.com/bible-chiasms-explanation-and-examples/
   • https://www.chiasmusxchange.com/explanatory-notes/
3. Welch, John W. (2007) “The Discovery of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon: Forty Years Later,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 16 : No. 2 , Article 10.
4. The literature on chiasmus is extensive. Consult John W. Welch and Daniel B. McKinlay, eds., Chiasmus Bibliography (Provo: Research Press, 1999). See also John W. Welch, Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981 [reprinted by FARMS in 1999]); Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephi’s Outline,” in BMA, 53–74; John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” in BMA, 33–52; Donald W. Parry, The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted according to Parallelistic Patterns (Provo: FARMS, 1992).
5. Parry, Donald W. Book of Mormon Chiasmus: 292 Extraordinary Examples. Stonewell Press, 2021. ISBN: 9781627301237
6. Allen J. Christenson, “The Use of Chiasmus in Ancient Mesoamerica” (Provo: FARMS, 1988); Allen J. Christenson, “The Use of Chiasmus by the Ancient Quiché-Maya” (Provo: FARMS, 1989).
7. Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 230–32.
8. For example, John W. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981);
   • “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 10 (Autumn 1969): 69-84. A full bibliography of publications about chiasmus is available from F.A.R.M.S.
   • “Chiasmus in Helaman 6:7–13,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 230–32. Chart 133
9. John Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1969.
10. Donald Parry’s “Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text”, 2007
11. Personal correspondence to John L. Sorenson, June 13, 1970, referring to pp. 4-6 of Ralph Roys’s translation (see paperback edition, University of Oklahoma Press, 1973).
12. Based on research by John W. Welch, May 1987.
13. For example, John W. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981).
14. See Munro Edmonson, The Book of Counsel: The Popol Vuh, Tulane Univ., Middle Amer. Research Inst. Publ. 35 (New Orleans: Tulane University, 1971), 9-13.
15. The text is in Daniel G. Brinton, The Annals of the Cakchiquels (Philadelphia: Brinton’s Library of Aboriginal American Literature, 1885), 75-77.
16. See Eric Thompson, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press (1960), 2:61-62, and personal communication to John L. Sorenson.
17. Based on research by Allen J. Christenson, January 1988. Following the publication of this Update, part of Christenson’s work appeared as “The Use of Chiasmus by the Ancient Quiche-Maya,” Latin American Literatures Journal 4, no. 2 (Fall 1988): 125-50.
    • His full research was published as “The Use of Chiasmus in Ancient Mesoamerica” (Provo: F.A.R.M.S., 1988);
    • a short report appeared in “Chiasmus in Mayan Texts’, Ensign 18 (October 1988): 28-31.
18. John W. Welch, “What Does Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Prove?” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (ed. Noel B. Reynolds, Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1997, pp. 218-219.
19. Edwards, Boyd F., and W. Farrell Edwards. “Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance?” BYU Studies43, no. 2 (2004): 103-130.
20. Loftes Tryk, The Best Kept Secrets in the Book of Mormon, Redondo Beach, CA: Jacob’s Well Foundation, 1988 
21. https://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

Additional Reading

1. Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, “Does Joseph’s Letter to Emma of 4 November 1838 Show that He Knew about Chiasmus?,” Dialogue: A Journal Of Mormon Thought, Dialogue Paperless: E-Paper # 4, August 26, 2006