Chiasmus is a Hebrew literary form first noticed in The Book of Mormon by John W. Welch in 1967 when he was a young missionary in Germany.[i] Numerous books and articles have been written on the topic, including Dr. Donald Parry’s Poetic Parallelisms in The Book of Mormon[ii], which reformats the complete text wherever there are parallel structures.

“Chiasmus is an inverted parallelism, a presentation of a series of words or thoughts followed by a second presentation of a series of words or thoughts, but in reverse order.”[iii] It is commonly presented by using capital letters to denote each line and its correspondent. Here is the example from Mosiah 2:56 that I showed in Chapter 3.

A   And it came to pass that when they came up to the temple,

  B   they pitched their tents round about,

        C   every man according to his family,

        D consisting of his wife, and his sons, and his daughters,

             D and their sons, and their daughters, from the eldest down to the youngest,

        C   every family being separate one from another.

  B   And they pitched their tents round about

A   the temple (chiasmus)[iv]

Throughout this chapter I will follow the same nomenclature Parry uses (ABCD/DCBA), except I will annotate parallel lines with superscripts to make analysis of each line easier and clearer.

Welch describes the benefits of chiasmus:

The repeating of key words in the two halves underlines the importance of the concepts they present. Furthermore, the main idea of the passage is placed at the turning point where the second half begins, which emphasizes it. The repeating form also enhances clarity and speeds memorizing. Readers (or listeners) gain a pleasing sense of completeness as the passage returns at the end to the idea that began it. Identifying the presence of chiasmus in a composition can reveal many complex and subtle features of the text.[v]

Dr. Parry has identified hundreds of chiastic and other parallel structures in The Book of Mormon. I looked at Alma 22 in Parry’s excellent book. There are some parallel structures identified in the early parts of Alma 22, but none after verse 17.

In presenting my own ideas, I’m cognizant of Welch’s observation regarding the technical requirements for identifying chiastic structures.

Even if the example is not a very good one, a personally discovered chiasm tends to become a treasured piece of knowledge that the reader will continue to enjoy even if the example is not clear enough to convince anyone else that the passage should be called chiastic.[vi]

My objective here is not to convince anyone that the parallel structures in Alma 22 should be used as evidence of the ancient origins of the text. I assume readers have accepted its ancient origins; if not, many other sources can be consulted on that issue, including the ones I cite here. Instead, my objective is to use these structures to better understand what the author, Mormon, was trying to communicate.

I also acknowledge that there are different ways to interpret these verses. Some commentators reject chiasmus as a meaningful tool in the first place. Others dispute the requirements for identifying chiastic or parallel structures. I reject the notion that it requires special expertise to identify and appreciate parallel structures; the text of the Book of Mormon was intended for general audiences—everyone in the world, actually.

I’ve identified the structures I consider important. Their application to Alma 22 has been helpful and meaningful to me, and it’s in that context that I share them in the next chapter.

My analysis includes an assessment of Royal Skousen’s work on the textual variants of The Book of Mormon as applied to these verses. I also disregard punctuation because, as Skousen notes, “The original manuscript basically had no punctuation except for some dashes in the book summaries. The scribes for the printer’s manuscript occasionally supplied some punctuation as they copied the text.”[vii] Ancient languages such as Hebrew and Greek did not use punctuation. I infer that the ancient Nephite language also did not use punctuation.

Parallel structures in an ancient text can help clarify meaning similar to the way modern punctuation does in a modern text. Of course, modern punctuation placement can dramatically alter the meaning of a text. Ignoring parallel structures in an ancient text, or incorrectly arranging the structure,[viii] could also dramatically alter the meaning.

In my view, ignoring the parallel structures in Alma 22 has led to confusion in interpreting the text.

Parallel Structures and Technical Rules

Chiasmus is one of several types of parallel structures, including simple and extended synonymous, simple, repeated, and extended alternate, synthetic parallelism, graduation parallelism, detailing, working out, and contrasting ideas.[ix] Repetition or reiteration of words and phrases is a subcategory of parallelism. Each occurrence of the repeated expression “takes on a certain coloration from the surrounding material and from its position in the series.”[x]

The utility and even the validity of chiasmus is a topic of debate. Critics argue that chiasmus may be more the product of modern analysis than anything an ancient author intended. It is possible to find chiasmus in instruction manuals and Dr. Seuss books.[xi] Chiasms may be proposed for a variety of reasons unrelated to the original author’s intent.

Welch’s discovery [of chiasmus in The Book of Mormon] opened a Pandora’s box of chiasms that have been identified in various works—it seems that in some Mormon circles chiasms are sought ‘everywhere.’ Some chiasms are used in an attempt to uncover hidden meanings, while others are treated as evidence of particular points of view in debates about Book of Mormon origins.[xii]

Edwards and Edwards have developed an “admissibility test” based on mathematics to assess the intentionality of a proposed chiasm.[xiii] Welch has defined fifteen criteria useful to measure the strength or weakness of a proposed chiastic pattern.[xiv]

Here is the proposed chiastic structure for verse 27. Following normal convention, each line is lettered and chiastic terms are underlined. For clarity purposes, the repeated first word is bolded.

And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land

A   amongst all his people who were in all his land who were in all the regions round about

  B   which was bordering even to the sea on the east and on the west and

             C   which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of

                   wilderness

                   D  a  which ran from the sea east

                    b   even to the sea west

             D1      a    and round about on the borders of the seashore

                    b   and the borders of the wilderness

        C1  which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla 

  B1 through the borders of Manti by the head of the river Sidon running from the east towards the west

A1  —and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

There are seven chiastic or parallel terms (people, bordering, east, west, land of Zarahemla, sea east/sea west, and borders) that occur only in their corresponding lines, and there is only one chiastic term that appears outside its corresponding line (wilderness in line C), giving this structure a low P score under the Edwards test, which is strong evidence of intentionality. But there are three important caveats: (i) the comparison of his people with Lamanites, (ii) the repetition of the word which, and (iii) the crux of the chiasm, which is a dual couplet that repeats the chiastic terms sequentially in groups of two instead of repeating them in inverse order.

1. Comparison of people with Lamanites. The verse begins with the king sending a proclamation throughout all the land, but Mormon quickly notes it wasn’t really all the land; the proclamation only went to the king’s people who were in the king’s land. Mormon takes this opportunity to outline the basic geographical distinction between the Lamanite king’s lands and the lands of the Nephites, knowing this will become important later in his narrative. Inherent in the geography is the distinction between the king’s people and the Nephites, or the Lamanites and the Nephites. Hence, his people is parallel to Lamanites, even though the words are not identical. Mormon makes a similar correlation between these terms in Helaman 11:21: “the more part of the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites, did belong to the church.”

2. Repetition of the word which. The technical term for this usage is like sentence beginnings.[xv] As a competing parallel structure, this repetition argues against the chiastic structure. However, Mormon needed to use the term to make it clear that each line refers back to the king’s land that he was describing. Each phrase beginning with which provides more detailed understanding of the boundaries of the king’s land, not the preceding phrase. The chiastic structure assists with this interpretation.

This is Parry’s structure:

A    Behold we will give up

   B The land of Jershon

         C Which is on the east by the sea which joins the land Bountiful

         C1   Which is on the south of the land Bountiful

   B1   And this land Jershon is the land

A1   Which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance.[xvi]

Parry’s interpretation of this verse balances the chiasmus (with respect to the term Bountiful) and places both Jershon and Bountiful on the sea, with Jershon south of Bountiful.

I propose a different structure for this verse. I think Mormon uses which as a serial modifier of an initial term in Alma 27:22 (ironically the inverse of Alma 22:27), not twice but each time it is used. I also note that in the printer’s manuscript, bountiful is not capitalized in this passage. I propose that is not a mistake, but that in this case, bountiful is being used as an adjective, as I explain in the chapter on Alma.

A Behold we will give up

   B The land of Jershon

               C Which is on the east by the sea

               C1 Which joins the land bountiful

               C2 Which is on the south of the land bountiful

   B1 And this land Jershon is the land

A1 Which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance.[xvii]

This interpretation would break out which joins the land bountiful as a separate line, giving three distinct descriptions of Jershon: it is on the east by the sea, it joins the land bountiful (which presumably means it is adjacent to bountiful) and it is on the south of bountiful—but bountiful is not necessarily on the sea.

Regardless of which structure one applies to Alma 27:22, this is another example of Mormon using at least three which clauses to refer back to the original land being described. It is important to note that the use of which as a like sentence beginning does not undo the chiasm.

Referring back to Alma 22:27, what impact does the absence of a which beginning in line B1 have?

The which beginnings do not destroy the chiasm, but neither are they essential to it. In this context, which is not even a chiastic term. Its presence is immaterial to the chiastic structure. It exists solely to explain to what precedent each line refers (in this case, the king’s land). The absence of which at the beginning of line B1 informs the reader that line B1 modifies the preceding line. It describes the northern border with Zarahemla.

3. Crux of the chiasm. The crux or centerpiece of this chiasm is a dual couplet that repeats the chiastic terms sequentially in groups of two lines instead of repeating them in inverse order. Is this a unique or random structure? And does its inclusion at the crux of the chiasm impair or destroy the structure?

Parry describes a simple alternate as four lines placed in an AB/AB pattern.[xviii] In some cases, the AB/AB pattern contains elements that form an AA/BB pattern. For clarity purposes, I refer to the latter pattern as a dual couplet. Sometimes these are embedded inside a longer chiasm, and sometimes they are found at the crux or centerpiece of a chiasm.

A good example of a chiasm with an embedded couplet that is both a dual couplet and a simple alternate is Alma 36, one of the best-known chiasms in The Book of Mormon. This one is found in verse 26, embedded in section G of the chiasm:

a  And have tasted

   b  As I have tasted

a And have seen eye to eye

   b As I have seen

This passage repeats the chiastic terms tasted and seen in sequential lines instead of in reverse order. Parry designates this as an ab/ab structure, part of an extended alternate that continues in section F[xix], yet the terms he underlines are in an aa/bb structure.

A similar structure occurs in 3 Nephi 27:8, this time at the crux of an important chiasm. Christ uses a structure Parry designates as simple alternate ab/ab, but He repeats chiastic terms sequentially instead of in reverse order—an aa/bb structure as well as an ab/ab structure.

  C

     a For if a church be called in Moses’ name

                 b then it be Moses’ church

  C 

     a or if it be called in the name of a man

                 b then it be the church of a man[xx]

Samuel the Lamanite also embeds a simple alternate at the crux of his chiasmus in Helaman 13:7.[xxi]

These examples show that Alma 22:27 is not unique in having a non-chiastic parallel structure at the crux of even a prominent chiasm, but what about Mormon as an author? Are there other examples of him combining parallel forms within a chiasmus that suggest the chiasm in this verse was intentional?

In Words of Mormon 1:3-11, Mormon writes a chiasmus with an embedded repeated alternate (verse 4).[xxii] In Mosiah 26:1-3, he places a simple alternate at the crux of a chiasmus.[xxiii] In Alma 13:6-10, Mormon uses an extended alternate and progression at the crux of his chiasmus.[xxiv] He uses both a simple alternate and a repeated alternate at the crux of his chiasmus in Alma 30:4-12.[xxv]

Combined with the examples from other authors, these samples of Mormon’s writing demonstrate his familiarity with chiastic and other parallel structures. Alma 22:27 does appear to be an intentional chiasm.

Because Welch’s fifteen criteria[xxvi] contribute to understanding verse 27 and support the validity of the chiastic structure, I apply them here.

1. Objectivity. The chiastic elements are objectively observable in the text, as I showed by underlining the parallel terms. The discussion above shows how these elements are used specifically to create the chiastic form.

2. Purpose. Mormon describes the boundaries of the king’s land knowing he cannot refer to names familiar to his future readers. He also seeks to establish a framework for presenting the war maneuvers and strategies to come. How does chiasmus help with this? Possibly it’s simply a function of how he thinks; i.e., he has read (and copied) so many chiasms that he organizes his thoughts in a chiastic structure. He goes from specifics to the overall picture and back to specifics, all in an attempt to convey geographical boundaries that his readers will be unfamiliar with.

3. Boundaries. Mormon establishes clear boundaries for his discussion of geography. Verse 27 begins and ends with a declaration about the division between the people. Mormon’s overall description of geography ends at verse 35, when he declares, “And now I, after having said this, return again to the account . . .”

4. Competition with other forms. By using which at the start of most of his lines in verse 27, Mormon does combine other forms of parallel structure, which could argue against a pure chiasm. But as explained above, which is neither an impediment to chiastic structure nor necessary for it.

5. Length. Mormon introduces seven words or concepts in one order and then repeats them in the opposite order.

6. Density. With only 111 words, verse 27 is compact.

7. Dominance. The chiastic terms in the passage focus on Mormon’s objective of describing the extent of the king’s land. The construction relies on no insubstantial words.

8. Mavericks. There are no key elements in the system that appear extraneously outside the proposed structure, apart from one use of wilderness.

9. Reduplication. There is reduplication in the passage; the terms sea, east, west, borders, seashore and wilderness appear in the couplets at the crux as well as in the parallel lines. This does not appear random, however, because the dual couplets at the crux describe the overall boundaries of the land that the rest of the passage defines more specifically.

10. Centrality. There is a well-defined centerpiece in verse 27, consisting of a dual couplet that defines the extent of the king’s land. The dual couplet gives the east, west, north and south boundaries, as well as the general shape of the territory. The lines leading to it, and the parallel lines leading away from it, offer details about these boundaries.

11. Balance. The proposed chiasm is balanced in terms of lines and elements.

12. Climax. The concept at the center is the main point of the passage; i.e., the extent of the king’s land.

13. Return. The beginning and end create a strong sense of return and completion. The passage begins by referring to the king’s people and ends with “thus were the Lamanites and Nephites divided.”

14. Compatibility. The return is consistent with the overall style of Mormon as an author. As discussed above, Mormon uses the same parallel terms (people being parallel to Nephites and Lamanites) in Helaman 11:21, and in several other passages, Mormon combines different parallel elements in chiasms as he has here.

15. Aesthetics. Like most of Mormon’s parallel writings, this passage is not as fluid as chiasms written by the authors he quotes, such as Nephi and Alma. That helps to establish his unique writing style.

This application of Welch’s criteria suggests that the structure in verse 27 satisfies most criteria of a legitimate, intentional chiasmus.

Alma 22:27-34 contains several forms of parallelism, including repetition. I propose that verse 27 is a chiasmus that includes repetition and fulfills the poetic purpose of detailing and working out, while verses 28-34 have variations of other forms of parallelism that achieve similar poetic purposes.

According to Parry, a detailing pattern “features an introductory phrase of sentence, followed by one or more subsequent lines that ‘detail’ what was said in line one . . . additional lines are presented for the purpose of adding details to the first line. Detailing frequently answers one of the questions—who, which, where, why, what, or how?”[xxvii]

The chiasmus in verse 27 answers the questions of which and where raised by the introductory clause; i.e., which land was the king’s, and where was it?

A related poetic pattern is “working out,” which “is a figure where two or more lines deliberate or explain what was first said in line one.”[xxviii]

Parry offers Helaman 1:31 as an example of working out:[xxix]

And now, behold, the Lamanites could not retreat either way

neither on the north,

nor on the south,

nor on the east,

nor on the west,

for they were surrounded on every hand by the Nephites.

The introductory phrase in verse 27 of Alma 22 starts with a declaration that the king spoke to his people who were in his land, in all the regions round about. The subsequent lines give detail about what his land consisted of.

Another parallel structure Parry describes is “repetition,” which is “a subcategory of the poetic forms called parallelism.”[xxx] “Like sentence beginnings” is a significant type of repetition. Parry offers Mormon 9:26 as an example:

And now behold,

Who can stand against the works of the Lord?

Who can deny his saying?

Who will rise up against the almighty power of the Lord?

Who will despise the works of the Lord?

Who will despise the children of Christ? (Mormon 9:26)

Another example is Alma 37:3. In this case Alma uses which in what Parry identifies as like sentence beginnings to modify the plates of brass:

Which contain these engravings

Which have the records of the holy scriptures upon them

Which have the genealogy of our forefathers[xxxi]

Helaman 7:10 is another example that repeats the word which but the structure changes the way the term is used.

And behold, now it came to pass that it was upon a tower,

   which was in the garden of Nephi,

   which was by the highway

   which led to the chief market,

   which was in the city of Zarahemla;

therefore, Nephi had bowed himself upon the tower

   which was in his garden,

   which tower was also near unto the garden gate

   by which led the highway. (Helaman 7:10)

This example is not a chiasmus; it does not repeat the words or concepts in reverse order. In this example, each which modifies the clause that precedes it.

Parry describes the first four lines of Helaman 7:10 as like sentence beginnings but does not identify a pattern in the lines beginning with therefore.[xxxii] I infer that he does so because the pattern is not perfect—it only repeats the word which two times, and does not satisfy the technical elements of a specific parallel structure. From an analytical and academic perspective, this is a critical check on exuberance. Searching for parallel structures raises a risk of finding supposed parallels that do not meet the technical requirements; i.e., a reader may “stretch” the definitions of chiasmus too far, thereby diluting the concept.

However, I propose that the entire verse is a repetition that serves the objective of detailing. I categorize this structure as an extended alternate, which, according to Parry, differs from a simple and repeated alternate “in that additional alternating lines are present in extended alternate.”[xxxiii] In other words, the lines repeat themselves in ABC/ABC pattern—but not exactly in this case. Tower and garden are parallel, but in the second stanza Mormon inserts the garden gate before repeating highway, and leaves out the market and reference to the city of Zarahemla.

Mormon as Author

Despite the technical inadequacy of Helaman 7:10, I propose there are reasons to look at imperfect, broken, and mixed parallel structures in Mormon’s writing. As I assess the parallel structures in Alma 22, I keep in mind that Mormon was a military man. He thinks in terms of borders and defense and offense, setting the stage for the war chapters he will spend a lot of time on. He’s not a poet. His parallel structures are not as expertly designed as some of those he quotes, originally written by Nephi or King Benjamin or Alma, all of whom the text implies had training in the language.

In fact, in my view, this disparity in the quality of parallel structures is additional evidence of multiple authors (and of a complexity far beyond what Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries were capable of writing on their own).[xxxiv] For example, in Helaman 7, we have a definite chiasmus in verses 6-9, but that is a quotation from Nephi. Verse 10 breaks away from Nephi’s exclamation (And behold, now it came to pass) and Mormon writes this imperfect parallel structure. Helaman 10 is another good example of a chiastic quotation from Nephi. Helaman 6 is a chiastic chronicle of an entire year, presumably quoted by Mormon.

One more example of Mormon’s style is found in Moroni 7:6-9, as structured by Parry.[xxxv]

A For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good

    B for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God,

           C except he shall do it with real intent

                   D    it profiteth him nothing.

                          For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.

A For behold, if a man being evil

    B giveth a gift,

           C he doeth it grudgingly

                   D    wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.

A     And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man,

    B     if he shall pray

           C and not with real intent of heart;

                   D    yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such. (Extended alternate)

This is a sermon by Mormon that Moroni added once he took over the record. Presumably it is from a document prepared by Mormon. As such, we might expect the sermon to be more formal than the historical narrative Mormon writes. And yet, the parallel structures even here are imperfect.

Parry describes verses 6-9 as an “extended alternate”[xxxvi] but the parallel lines are somewhat jumbled. Line b in verse 6 has two elements repeated, repeated separately in line b of verses 8 and 9. Lines d of verses 6 and 9 use profited but verse 8 doesn’t. The last line of the first two verses is not repeated in the third verse. This is not to criticize Mormon but to show how he tends to use parallel structure.

Although he was no expert, certainly Mormon was familiar with parallel structures; that is evident from his selections of chiastic material for his compilation. In my lay opinion, Mormon’s own efforts are more a natural product of a way of thinking than a product of formal training.

Welch comments on Mormon specifically:

Mormon seems to have been relatively careful to quote entire texts—such as King Benjamin’s speech, Alma’s blessing to Helaman, and the annual report for the sixty-fourth year of the reign of the judges—as he incorporated those records into his own account. Mormon was often careful to identify when he was quoting from underlying sources as opposed to paraphrasing them. That his paraphrases tend to feature very little in the way of chiasmus also shows that the style of the abridger was different from the style of the underlying texts brought into the final record by direct quotation.[xxxvii]

Verses 27-34 in Alma 22 are unquestionably Mormon’s own words. At the conclusion of the passage, in verse 35, he writes “And now I, after having said this, return again to the account of Ammon and Aaron, Omner and Himni, and their brethren.” In my view, he provides this overview of geography not just to explain to whom the king’s proclamation went, but to prepare the reader for the upcoming war chapters. The reader has no reason to care about the delineation of the borders with respect to the king’s proclamation per se, but these borders are essential to understanding the different fronts in the wars, the movement of men and supplies, etc. that Mormon knows he will cover in future chapters. Alma 22 thus establishes a map, or at least an overall framework, for understanding Mormon’s war material.

Mormon also knew he could not name a future landmark—say, New York City (or Guatemala City)—as a reference point or touchstone. He could only write in general terms, using bodies of water and wilderness to give an overall lay of the land. It is logical to expect Mormon to use the parallel structure to help orient the reader and explain the geographic challenges his people faced, especially in time of war.

Most of Mormon’s own writings lack parallel structures, but he does use some in connection with geography in Alma 22, Helaman 6:10, 3 Nephi 1:27-28 (which is an example of working out or explaining a concept similar to Alma 22), 3 Nephi 6:2, and Mormon 3:7-8.

In assessing parallel structures in the next chapter, I ignore the verses as they are currently laid out in the text of The Book of Mormon. The text was divided into chapters and verses in 1879 by Orson Pratt, on assignment from John Taylor. This made it much easier to refer to particular passages, but does not reflect the original manuscript’s structure—or the parallel structure.

Nevertheless, in some cases, the verses do coincide with the parallel structure, as in verses 27 and 28. In other cases, my assessment of the parallel structure leads me to consider portions of verses separately or combine portions of two adjoining verses.

[i] John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in The Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 10/1 (1969): 69-84.

[ii] Donald W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in The Book of Mormon (Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, Provo, Utah, 2007). The book, cited herein as Parry, is available here: http://bit.ly/Moroni126.

[iii] Parry, p. xvi.

[iv] Parry, p. 160.

[v] John W. Welch, “A Masterpiece: Alma 36,” in Rediscovering The Book of Mormon: Insights you may have missed before (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1991, edited by John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne), p. 114.

[vi] John W. Welch, “What Does Chiasmus in The Book of Mormon Prove?”, found in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Provo, Utah, 1997, edited by Noel B. Reynolds): 202, herein cited as Welch, Chiasmus.

[vii] Royal Skousen, The Printer’s Manuscript of The Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Entire Text in Two Parts, Part One (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 2001): 15.

[viii] An example of what I consider an incorrect framing of Alma 22 is offered by F. Richard Hauck, Ph.D., “Recent Book of Mormon Research in Central America: Coming to Grips with Geography,” Meridian Magazine, March 19, 2013, http://bit.ly/Moroni127. Dr. Hauck reaches conclusions similar to mine but with major differences attributable to his different structure, to inferences he draws from other verses, and to his insertion of a requirement for a mountainous terrain that is not in the text.

[ix] For explanations and examples of these, see Parry, pp. xvi-xxxiv.

[x] Alter, Art of Biblical Poetry, 64, cited in Parry, xxxv.

[xi] Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, “When Are Chiasms Admissible as Evidence?” BYU Studies, Vol. 49, No. 4 (2010): 134.

[xii] Ibid, 133.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] John W. Welch, “Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/2 (1995), referred to herein as Welch, “Criteria.” Available online at http://bit.ly/Moroni128.

[xv] Parry, xxxv.

[xvi] Parry, 296.

[xvii] Parry, 296. Parry includes my line D with his line C. His interpretation balances the chiasmus but changes the meaning; i.e., he would have the sea join the land Bountiful, making Jershon on the east by the sea and on the south of Bountiful. My interpretation describes Jershon as running from the east by the sea along the border of Bountiful to the area south of Bountiful.

[xviii] Parry, xxi.

[xix] Parry, 321.

[xx] Parry, 489-90.

[xxi] Parry, 423.

[xxii] Parry, 156.

[xxiii] Parry, 211-2.

[xxiv] Parry, 259-60.

[xxv] Parry, 300-1.

[xxvi] Welch, “Criteria,” p.

[xxvii] Parry, xxxiii.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Parry, p. xxxiii-xxxiv.

[xxx] Parry, p. xxxiv.

[xxxi] Parry, 322.

[xxxii] Parry, 409.

[xxxiii] Parry, p. xxiii.

[xxxiv] Welch, Chiasmus, 207-213.

[xxxv] Parry, 553-4.

[xxxvi] Parry, p. 426.

[xxxvii] Ibid, pp. 212-3.

A Chiastic Book of Mormon Geography

This section outlines and analyzes the parallel structures in Alma 22 to create an overall abstract model of Book of Mormon geography. It shows that the text describes the setting proposed in previous chapters.

Alma 22:27—a Chiastic Overview of Book of Mormon Geography

And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land

A amongst all his people who were in all his land who were in all the regions round about

    B which was bordering even to the sea on the east and on the west and

           C which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness 

                   D    a  which ran from the sea east

                      b even to the sea west

                   D1 a  and round about on the borders of the seashore

                      b and the borders of the wilderness

           C1   which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla 

    B1    through the borders of Manti by the head of the river Sidon running from the east towards the west

A1  —and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

Analysis

The first fifteen words in the verse explain the main action; i.e., the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land. But it wasn’t really all the land; it was only to his people in his land. Mormon realizes his readers need more clarification (if not necessarily now, they will in a few more chapters when he describes the wars), so he takes this opportunity to explain how the land was divided between the two main groups.

Lines A and A1 both address the concept that there the king’s people (Lamanites) were separate from others (Nephites). Note that Mormon uses the same parallel terms (people being parallel to Nephites and Lamanites) in Helaman 11:21 (“the more part of the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites”).

Lines B, C, D, and their counterparts describe what land was subject to the king. When read as an ordinary paragraph, this verse has led to a variety of interpretations. When read in chiastic format, it becomes clearer.

The chiastic structure with the repeating first term leads me to conclude that each line beginning with which is a description of the king’s land—not a modification of the preceding line. This structure differs from the repeated parallel structure of Helaman 7:10, discussed above. In that case, the which clauses modified the preceding line. In this case the which clauses relate back to the main objective of the stanza—to describe the extent of the king’s land.

This is evident in the grammar of Line B. The line begins with which was, a singular verb. If this line modified the preceding line (regions round about) the verb would have been plural.

 (I realize other reasonable conclusions could be drawn, and I expect others will offer additional insight. I’ve worked out a few other alternatives but the one I describe here seems the most consistent with the structure Mormon created and is also the most internally consistent not only in Alma 22 but in the subsequent war chapters of Alma and the geographical references in Helaman.)

Lines B and B1 refer to the east/west orientation of the Lamanite land. B explains that the land was bordering even to—in other words, extended as far as—the sea on the east and on the west. The omission of the term sea before on the west leaves the phrase somewhat ambiguous. The text could have said “the sea on the east and the sea on the west.” Alternatively, it could have said “the seas on the east and on the west.” The ambiguity can be resolved by inferring either that there was a sea on the west, or that if there was a sea, the border did not coincide with it; i.e., the border may have extended beyond or fallen short of any sea west. Or maybe it was just undefined—somewhere out west.

Although B1 lacks the word which, it has elements parallel to B. I interpret it as a continuation of C1. The king’s land bordered the land of Zarahemla on the north, then bordered Manti, beginning at the head of Sidon, from east to west. The sequence of the northern border, from east to west, goes like this: Zarahemla, head of Sidon, Manti.

Lines C and C1 explain the division between the king’s land and the land of Zarahemla. The border consisted of a narrow strip of wilderness. The parallel structure helps us understand that C1 explains that the border with Zarahemla—the narrow strip of wilderness—was on the north of the king’s land “through the borders of Manti by the head of the river Sidon.”

Lines D and D1 are couplets. This is the “turning point” of the chiasmus, the most important point. These four lines describe the overall shape and dimensions of the king’s land—the Lamanite territory. D describes the east/west boundary, while D1 describes the north/south boundary. You start at the sea east and go to the sea west, then “round about” on the borders of the seashore (coming back to the sea east) and continuing round about on the borders of the wilderness back to the sea west.

Graphically, it looks like this:

We understand the “borders of the seashore” are on the south because we’re also told that the north part of the king’s land was the wilderness bordering on the land of Zarahemla.

Mormon could have simply described the king’s land with D and D1 but the lines ABC and C1B1A1 offer additional detail and clarity.

An obvious question arises about the sea west, which is mentioned in Db but not in B. This supports the interpretation that the sea was omitted in B because it was implied.

_____

An additional comment about directions is important. Some commentators, to rationalize a Mesoamerican setting, hypothesize that the Nephites did not use cardinal directions as we know them today. I find no justification in the text for that interpretation. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, I assume the text describes cardinal directions, as we know them today; i.e., the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Accordingly, my understanding of verse 27 produces this general geography:

Alma 22:28

Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness and dwelt in tents

    A and they were spread through the wilderness on the west in the land of Nephi

             C     [yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla]

      B     in the borders by the seashore

    A1  and on the west in the land of Nephi in the place of their fathers’ first

           inheritance

           B1    and thus bordering along by the seashore.

Analysis

This verse explains where the idle Lamanites live, what the term wilderness means, and where it is found in relation to the overall geography. Wilderness normally means a place where there are no cities or permanent dwellings. People live in tents, apparently because they are “idle,” meaning they do not work hard or at least do not have a sophisticated social structure.

This is a parallel structure that I understand as a simple alternate (AB/AB), with an opposite (the C line) inserted as a sort of parenthetical to A. “More than one hundred examples of simple alternate forms can be found in The Book of Mormon,”[i] so this would be a common structure but for the problematic B line. Had Mormon included a second B line here, this would have been an extended alternate. (An extended alternate has more than the two repeated lines of a simple alternate, such as ABC/ABC.)

Line B could be interpreted several ways, but as an opposite (Zarahemla instead of Nephi), its insertion here suggests it operates as a parenthetical clarification, so I put it in brackets. Mormon has already told us that Zarahemla is north of Nephi, and that the Lamanite territory was bordering on the west. Line B appears to be a clarification; i.e., line B tells us there is land west of Zarahemla that is not part of the land of Nephi—sort of a no-man’s land, or an unclaimed wilderness where idle Lamanites live in tents.

A and A1 match, as do B and B1. C does not have a match. (Structurally, the phrase in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance might be C1 except his has no linguistic correlation to B.) The first inheritance clause informs us that there are east and west sides of the land of Nephi, and that Lehi landed on the west side.  

Lines A/A1 and B/B1 repeat the point that the idle Lamanites live on the west in the land of Nephi (within Lamanite territory) and along the borders by the seashore, but setting off C this way suggests that those living on the west of the land of Zarahemla do not live by the borders of the seashore. In other words, those idle Lamanites living in the wilderness west of Zarahemla do not live by a seashore. The “sea west” does not extend north or west far enough to form a western border near Zarahemla.

Verse 27 explained that the Lamanite territory “was bordering even to the sea on the east and on the west.” Verse 28 seems to clarify that all of the west does not border on a sea; only those areas that are in the land of Nephi border on the sea.

This verse leads me to modify my schematic.

[i] Parry, p. xxi.

Alma 22:29a

And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore whither the Nephites had driven them.

Analysis

In this sentence, Mormon makes a clear break from the seashore he referred to in the preceding stanza. Now he’s talking about a seashore on the east inside the land of Nephi. He makes no distinction between Nephi and Zarahemla on the east, implying the Lamanites occupy the east all the way north to the top of Zarahemla. The east side lacks a “no-man’s land;” all those Lamanites on the east are by the seashore. This means the narrow strip of wilderness does not extend all the way to the east coast.

With this information, I modify the diagram again.

Alma 22:29b

And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites;

A nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the

    land

    B     bordering on the wilderness

           C at the head of the river Sidon

           C1  from the east to the west

    B1 round about on the wilderness side

A1   on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful

Analysis

Here, Mormon makes several important observations. First, he’s now going to explain the Nephite territory. The Nephites are nearly surrounded. From what he’s explained so far, we have Lamanites on the south, on the east, and at least sparsely populating the wilderness west of Zarahemla where there is no sea. This leaves only the north—which is exactly what Mormon says the Nephites have possessed in A and A1.

Second, Mormon previously explained that the border between Zarahemla and Nephi was on the north of Nephi, making the border also on the south of Zarahemla. We can infer that bordering on the wilderness means the narrow strip of wilderness south of Zarahemla because he ties it back to the head of the river Sidon. C and C1 pick up the description from verse 27 (the borders of Manti by the head of the river Sidon running from the east towards the west). So again, it appears the narrow strip of wilderness runs east and west, with the head of Sidon being a significant point along the border somewhere between east and west. The border goes through the head of Sidon, suggesting the narrow strip of wilderness (east/west) is a river that intersects with the head of Sidon (north/south).

The border is east to west, and then continues “round about on the wilderness side on the north.”

As we saw from the previous verses, Mormon mentions no wilderness on the east. There was a narrow strip of wilderness along the east-west border, leading to the wilderness on the west of Zarahemla.

Here, Mormon directs us along the border from east to west, passing through or by the head of Sidon, and then “round about” on the wilderness (or west side) on the north, until we reach Bountiful. He’s describing a loop; i.e., start in the east, follow the boundary west, circle north until we reach Bountiful. This implies Bountiful extends the rest of the way back to the east where we started; otherwise, the description of the border leaves a gap.

The diagram now focuses on the land of Zarahemla.

Alma 22:30

A And it bordered upon the land

    B     which they called Desolation,

A1  it being so far northward that it came into the land

    B1 which had been peopled and [had] been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken,

    B2    which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla 

A2   it being the place of their first landing and they came from there up into

    the south wilderness.

Analysis

This structure helps clarify this otherwise confusing and controversial passage. The entire passage is a parenthetical explanation of Bountiful, a digression from the overall map Mormon is describing. By using it to refer to Bountiful and which to refer to Desolation, the structure clarifies which attributes apply to which areas. It resembles a simple alternate, AB/AB, with an added B2. Also, I inserted [had] as Skousen did in his critical text. This is a small detail that plays a significant role.[i]

The passage tells us three things about the land Bountiful: 1) it bordered upon the land Desolation; 2) it was so far northward that it came into the land Desolation (the territories overlapped); and 3) it was the place of the first landing of the people of Zarahemla (Limhi’s 43 explorers).

Actually, the explorers found both Bountiful and Desolation, since the two areas overlapped. Mormon is writing hundreds of years in the future, looking back with his knowledge that the Nephites would occupy the land previously occupied by the Jaredites. But when Limhi’s 43 explorers discovered the area, no Nephites were living there. Relative to the land of Nephi from which Limhi’s explorers left, the land Bountiful was “far northward.”

We know from Mosiah 21:25-27 that the explorers were looking for Zarahemla, which they understood to be a large city on the river Sidon. Naturally their first landing would be at a large city on the river. This turned out to be a place that “had been people and had been destroyed.” Thinking it was Zarahemla that had been destroyed, they found the plates of Ether and saw no reason to explore further, so they left from there and returned to the south wilderness (Mosiah 21:26 explains they arrived in the borders of the land not many days before Ammon came).

Alma 22:31

Thus [a summary]

A the land on the northward was called Desolation and

A1   the land on the southward was called Bountiful,

B     it being the wilderness which [was] filled with all manner of wild

animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

Analysis

The parallel structure here contrasts the land Desolation from the land Bountiful, but the northward/southward designation is only relative to one another. From the previous passage, we know the lands overlap. (The Jaredite lands were not defined by the Ohio River; the land they occupied included both of the lands designated by the Nephites as Desolation and Bountiful.)

Verse 31 explains that Desolation was northward and Bountiful southward, but both are within the land northward; i.e., within the greater land of Zarahemla. This clarifies a key point in Book of Mormon geography; i.e., in the overall picture, the land northward, controlled by the Nephites, is Zarahemla, and the land southward, controlled by the Lamanites, is the land of Nephi. Desolation and Bountiful are distinct areas, possibly similar to provinces, within greater Zarahemla.

(Note 1: the parenthetical about wild animals merely explains the origin of the name Bountiful. Note 2: I inserted [was] as Skousen does in the critical text. The current edition of the Book of Mormon has is here, contrary to the printer’s manuscript.)

Another way to restate the meaning of this passage: both Desolation and Bountiful are in territory controlled by the Nephites because “the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness” (Alma 22:29). But relative to a particular point within Nephite territory, Desolation was northward and Bountiful was southward.

What is the particular point Mormon is using as a reference here?

He tells us in the next sentence.

Alma 22:32a

And now it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation from the east to the west sea.

Analysis

This passage has caused tremendous confusion. It lacks parallel structure so there is no help from reformatting it. We have part of the original manuscript for this passage and it reads exactly like the printers manuscript,[ii] so there is no help from those manuscripts, either.

Nevertheless, Skousen asserts that “the extant reading for Alma 22:32 is quite unacceptable [so] the critical text will assume that some phrase was accidentally omitted in O as Oliver Cowdery took down Joseph Smith’s dictation.”[iii] Skousen suggests[iv] adding the phrase between the land between line and Bountiful so the verse reads “on the line between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation.” One reason is 3 Nephi 3:23, which refers to “the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation.” Skousen’s suggestion is understandable but I disagree with it. (The reference in 3 Nephi involves a different location, but that’s not my main reason.)

I think the passage here is correct as is, although this may not be apparent at first.

Essentially, Mormon is describing two segments of the unnamed Nephite’s journey. Part of it is along the line Bountiful, and part is on the land Desolation from the east to the west sea.

This is not the only passage that refers to a line and a Nephite’s journey. Helaman 4:7 explains: “it being a day’s journey for a Nephite on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country.”

I think Mormon is referring to the same line in both verses.

In other words, it was a day’s journey for a Nephite on the line (both the line Bountiful and the line they fortified to defend their north country). It was a half day’s journey to go from the east to the west sea in the land Desolation.

The combined journey took a day and a half.

The verse is correct.

It was this standard “journey for a Nephite” that was Mormon’s reference point when he wrote “the land on the northward was called Desolation and the land on the southward was called Bountiful.” Relative to this area, Desolation is northward and Bountiful is southward.

How far does “a Nephite” journey in a day?

A day consists of 12 hours, on average. The average human walking speed is about 3.1 miles/hour, but an average man walks 4-5 miles/hour. Presumably “a Nephite” would walk at least 4 miles/hour. According to the text, the line Bountiful is one day’s journey—48 miles—and the land Desolation takes one half of a day—24 miles. (If the Nephite journeys over Desolation by water, presumably he can go a little faster).

The particular area I propose for the “journey for a Nephite” is the Niagara peninsula in New York. The area fits Mormon’s description almost exactly. The line Bountiful—from the Allegheny River to Lake Ontario—is about 48 miles. One day’s journey for a Nephite. The land Desolation, from the east to the west sea, is about 22-26 miles by land. A half day’s journey for a Nephite. Combined, they are a day and a half’s journey, exactly as the scripture says.

(There is also a waterway across Niagara, which is about 30 miles long because of curves. Presumably a Nephite could travel a little faster by water than by walking.)

Figure 80 shows the location of these features. 

The passage, as it is written, fits the geography.

[i] Skousen, p. 2066. Previously I explained how the restoration of [had] makes it more obvious that Mormon is quoting from the Mosiah account of Limhi’s explorers.

[ii] Skousen notes there is a crossed out w before bountiful. He suggests Oliver started to write which, caught his error, erased the w he had written, and then skipped between the land. I don’t know why Oliver wrote the w, but the passage wouldn’t make sense with between the land. It’s better as is.

[iii] Skousen, p. 2068.

[iv] Skousen, p. 2070.

Skousen also recommends that the phrase from the east be left unchanged, relying on the other conjunctive occurrences that combine sea with east and west, “with the understanding that the word sea is purposely ellipted.”[i] In other words, the original text omitted the word sea, whether to save space or because it was clearly implied; i.e., it should read “the land Desolation from the east sea to the west sea.”

While it is possible east in this passage could refer to a well-known landmark in the east, it makes more sense that an east sea is implied, so I agree with Skousen on this point.

This brings up the problem of seas.

There has been considerable confusion about the various seas described in the text for two reasons. One, people have assumed these were proper nouns instead of generalized directional designations. Two, people have not taken into consideration the context of each particular passage.

  In the context of the passage in verse 32, Mormon is referring specifically to the east and west sea that are part of the Nephite’s “day and a half journey” as he crosses Desolation from the east sea to the west sea, as shown in the map. That is an entirely different context from the context of the narrow strip of wilderness that flows through the borders of Manti by the head of the river Sidon. And it is an entirely different context from when Mormon mentions to the sea west in Helaman 4:7, referring to the fortified western border of Bountiful.

The importance of context is portrayed in Figure 81:

[i] Skousen, p. 2070.

The “land of Zarahemla” can have at least three meanings, based on context. It can be the area immediately around the city of Zarahemla, the regional area along the River Sidon (the original territory when Mosiah first entered the land), and the entire Nephite territory. Bountiful and Desolation both fit within the greater land of Zarahemla, but they are quite a distance away from the regional land of Zarahemla. Context is key. When considering the meaning of lands northward and lands southward, the same principle applies. Context is key.

Context is also essential to understand references to the seas, including the sea west. Literally, all the term means is a sea west of the speaker’s (or author’s) frame of reference. Certainly it would have been easier had the Nephites given these seas names, but once we understand the designations are relative, the geography becomes clear.

Critics may complain that a context-based interpretation is too easy, or too subjective, but I disagree. One still must read the text carefully and compare it to a real world setting.

The more important question is, what did the authors intend?

The fact that the Nephites didn’t use proper nouns when referring to the various seas indicates that they relied on context themselves. Perhaps they had an aversion to naming bodies of water. Nephi didn’t name the ocean they crossed. The Sidon River and the waters of Mormon are named, but other bodies of water remain generic in the text.

What sense does it make to insist that the authors of the Book of Mormon intended proper nouns for these seas when they explicitly used generic terms instead?

Alma 22:32b

and thus [a summary]

A the land of Nephi

    B and the land of Zarahemla

           C were nearly surrounded by water,

           C1   there being a small neck of land between

    B1    the land northward

A1   and the land southward.

Analysis

This chiastic structure reminds us that the land northward was the land of Zarahemla and the land southward was the land of Nephi. Both were nearly surrounded by water, with a small neck of land between them.

The text does not say these lands were nearly surrounded by seas. It uses the term water, which includes any body of water. To a military general such as Mormon, water in whatever form creates particular challenges and opportunities, so it is not surprising that he would make this observation.

If the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla are each surrounded by water (except for the small neck of land), then the border between them must be water. This confirms my conclusion that the narrow strip of wilderness consists of major rivers.

Relating the Book of Mormon geography to modern references, the land of Nephi is surrounded by seas on the east, south, and west (the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and lower Mississippi, respectively). The land of Zarahemla is surrounded by rivers and the Great Lakes.

The only area between Nephi and Zarahemla that was not a water boundary was the small neck of land at the line Bountiful. This was a strategic area because, left undefended, the Lamanites would have access directly into Nephite territory. Consequently, this neck of land was well fortified and measured (a day’s journey for a Nephite).

Alma 22:33a

And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful even from the east unto the west sea.

Analysis

It’s not clear why Mormon included this sentence. We infer from what he has already written that the Nephites inhabited this land. What does he mean by “And it came to pass” and “had inhabited” the land?

I think he is looking back, from centuries in the future, at the day when the Nephites were “driven even into the land of Bountiful and there they did fortify against the Lamanites from the west sea even unto the east” (Helaman 4:7). There is parallelism here, albeit separated by considerable distance.

Even from the east unto the west sea (Alma 22:33)

From the west sea even unto the east (Helaman 4:7)

These are also the two passages that refer to the “journey for a Nephite” in connection with the line and the small neck of land. In Mormon’s day, the Nephites lost this land. The line Bountiful was obliterated on the way to Cumorah. Perhaps he is expressing nostalgia here, remembering the days when the Nephites still occupied the land of Bountiful.

Alma 22:33b-34a

and thus [a summary]

the Nephites in their wisdom with their guards and their armies

A     had hemmed in

   B  the Lamanites on the south,

           C  that thereby they should have no more possession on the north

           C1  that they might not overrun the land northward.

   B1     Therefore the Lamanites

           C2  could have no more possessions

A1  only in the land of Nephi and the wilderness round about.

Analysis

There are parallel elements here, but they are too disjointed to constitute a formal parallel structure. Still, Mormon emphasizes the main points through repetition, and his structure offers an insight into his opinion of the situation. For example, the line I designate as A1 could actually be a C3, since it is a contrast to C1. But I placed it as A1 because I think it relates back to A.

In A, Mormon writes that the Nephites had hemmed in the Lamanites by limiting their possessions to the land of Nephi and the wilderness round about (A1). In other words, the Nephites have managed to get themselves surrounded!

This passage is ironic in tone. How does one “hem in” an enemy when one is surrounded? Normally, the person surrounded is the one who is hemmed in. When Mormon writes that the Nephites got themselves into this precarious position in their wisdom, I think he is actually adding to the irony. As he will explain in the war chapters, the Nephites’ strategic position was not all that effective, after all.

Of course, it is possible Mormon actually thinks it was wisdom for the Nephites to “hem in” the Lamanites on the south and in the wilderness round about. Maybe, given the numerical superiority of the Lamanites, they had no alternatives. Maybe this was the best they could do under the circumstances. If so, then the structure would change my line A1 to C3, as mentioned above. This is an example of how structure can change meaning or at least nuance.

Regardless of any intended irony, the parallel structure suggests Mormon has two separate concerns. The Nephites want to prevent the Lamanites from having possession of any territory on the north, meaning the land of Zarahemla, but they are also concerned about the Lamanites overrunning the land northward, meaning the land of Desolation. Is Mormon implying there was some way for the Lamanites to overrun Desolation even if they had no possessions in the north? I think so, and the war chapters explain how this happened.

Alma 22:34b

Now this was wisdom in the Nephites—as the Lamanites were an enemy to them, they would not suffer their afflictions on every hand, and also that they might have a country whither they might flee, according to their desires.

Analysis

Here, Mormon does find wisdom in the Nephite strategy, at least to the extent that they had a defended border and a defined territory. Separately, the Nephites retained the land northward as a place for a strategic retreat in case retreat became necessary because of a breakdown of their border defenses. Again, Mormon is setting the stage for the war chapters.

Conclusion

Alma 22:27-34 provides the longest comprehensive description of Book of Mormon geography in the text. As published, The Book of Mormon does not reveal the hundreds of parallel structures it contains. Readers must consult resources such as Parry’s book or Welch’s articles to see the structures. Reformatting passages that contain such structures adds meaning and insight into the intent of the various authors of the Book of Mormon, as well as the intent of Mormon, the overall editor.

In the case of Alma 22:27-34, the parallel structures provide an entirely new abstract geography of Book of Mormon events that suggests a predominantly east/west orientation of the Nephite territory. By contrast, traditional models focus on a north/south orientation, separated by a narrow neck of land—the hourglass shape I discussed in Chapter 3.

I offer this chiastic analysis as a tool to help understand the text. I think it makes a big difference to structure the text this way, instead of relying on punctuation inserted by the original printer.

It has been surprising to discover this level of complexity in the text. Surely Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery could not have known about this; in fact, I think they could not understand how the text describes the geography they had learned by revelation and experience.

It is even more astonishing that the parallel structure describes a real-world geography in North America that aligns with everything Joseph and Oliver actually said and wrote on the topic.