Does chiasmus prove the authenticity
of the Book of Mormon?

A demonstration of why it doesn't.

A "chiasm" is a passage which employs reverse parallelism, i.e. the first concept is repeated or reworded at the end, the second concept is repeated or reworded second from the end, etc.  (Think of it as an A B C--c' b' a' format.  See the Wikipedia.org entry on chiasmus for more.)  Regarding this literary device, LDS scholars and apologists claim four things:

1. Such literary structures were used by the Ancient Hebrews,
2. The Book of Mormon contains chiastic structures,
3. Joseph Smith, the author or translator (take your pick) of the Book of Mormon, didn't know about that form of writing, therefore
4. The Book of Mormon must be an authentically ancient document.

In response, skeptics have pointed out three things:

1. Knowledge of chiasmus was readily available in Joseph Smith's day,
2. Joseph Smith was actively trying to produce a document in a Biblically similar style, and
3. Chiasmus sometimes appears naturally anyway unknown to the author.

Hello friends, I am sure this topic has been debated before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon.  I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give.  This may have all been debated but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.
Cheers.

This was my response posted the next day:

A  Hello friends,
B  I am sure this
C  topic has been debated
D  before but I am really curious
E  as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon.

e'  I don't see how they could rationally explain it away
d'  and I was wondering what excuses they give.
c'  This may have all been debated
b'  but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.
a'  Cheers.

That's how we anti's explain it.