15 And it came to pass that when Nephi had declared unto them the word, behold, they did still harden their hearts and would not hearken unto his words; therefore they did revile against him, and did seek to lay their hands upon him that they might cast him into prison.
16 But behold, the power of God was with him, and they could not take him to cast him into prison, for he was taken by the Spirit and conveyed away out of the midst of them.
17 And it came to pass that thus he did go forth in the Spirit, from multitude to multitude, declaring the word of God, even until he had declared it unto them all, or sent it forth among all the people.
What makes it evocative for me is the multiple interpretations of this scripture that are possible. With an increasing discussion of good and bad apologetics, the release of the excellent Greg Kofford volume on the subject, (with accompanying drama) Andrew's excellent post, and the continuing debate over methods, this set of scriptures can act as a good case study in how you might read the scriptures.
What follows is a short list of how different readers my read the passage, including the one that most closely aligns with my view. (There are certain limits and dangers in using labels, but as anybody who has ever tried to cook dinner after their child pulled off all the labels of their kitchen products, they still matter. If you have a better label please feel free to mention it in the comments below.)
The text records exactly what happened in history. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book on this Earth. The people who read this way assume the text is what God wanted. People from this category in other religions would use the phrase “God Breathed” to describe the text without knowing much about its production history.
The person from this category would believe this event happened exactly as written. You could even write some sort of ad libbed homiletic commentary heard in Sunday School: Isn’t it (wonderful/amazing/) that (Deity) choose to (verb, double points for “show His love”) by (event just discussed in scripture.)
This is a type of reading that accepts the Book of Mormon as historical. The Nephites and Lamanites existed in a time and place, but the text, like all historical documents shows the bias and weakness of the author. Instead of assuming the characters behaved exactly as written, the figures were nuanced and real. This means the Nephites were selfish, sought power and influence, clannish, and had what modern readers would call ethno centric and even racist views of their neighbors. Readers that follow this style know that Moroni was portrayed as a hero but often created as many problems as he solved with his aggressive tactics, indefinite detention of prisoners(Alma 51:19; Alma 62:4), and poison they made the Lamanites try (Alma 55:30-31); while Amalickiah is portrayed as the villain but might have had some legitimate complaints. I described how reading with critical eye can change the text in Record Keeping Magic.
Individuals with this mindset in other religions probably read middle brow archaeological magazines from decent, if heavily biased Christian scholars. They have read Dever’s book placing the Bible in history, and have a pretty good knowledge of forms and poetry that enhance their appreciation of the text. They can give the same homilies in Sunday School as the average orthodox member, but they also like to mention the chiasms that enhance the teaching about the atonement, and the social commentary the sermon provided.
In reading this story they might suggest that the Roman’s had a special pathway that led from the barracks straight into the temple to disrupt potential civil unrest. Perhaps similar to the folk lore from Hebrew history that got included in scripture, and using the example of the Roman soldiers, Nephi's miraculous saving by the Spirit could be described as an intervention by a friendly governor. The same governor(s) to whom the people indirectly pleaded with Nephi in Helaman 11:8. (“The people began to plead with their…leaders that they would say to Nephi,” which suggests he was sequestered somewhere safe.)
The Big Picture View:
These people don’t get hung up on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. They could be simply agnostic on the subject, or actively reject the concept due to a graduate program in Biblical Archaeology, other advance training, or just because they never did get the strong impression the text reflects history. (Unlike the members of the Orthodox category, they notice that the face value descriptions of characters read like a bad novel.) In other religions these would be individuals that don’t care as much about the archaeological magazines from nuanced historical group, but instead focus on what kinds of charities and outreach their church does, and the application of the loving verses in the Bible.
These individuals would probably think that the naturalistic explanation from the above category is straining too much. They would likely say that the story is beautiful, and as they prayed about the text to help them get closer to Christ, it did, and that’s all that matters. They see the text as a helpful agent in getting close to God, and even in staying simpatico with the church. They would have a difficult time in Sunday School, but some brave souls make it work and provide good big picture ideas about improving a person’s life, and improving their relationship with their fellow man.
These are pretty broad categories that describe what I’ve seen in apologetics. I make no claims to this being exhaustive and I still need to read the rest of the excellent new Kofford volume on the subject. But I do think that examining one scripture using these different methods helps to crystallize the key concepts and bring new understanding between the groups. As the drama continues on facebook between the different groups it would help to pause and consider how much of it might be based on different reading styles, and not because the people with that style are wicked.
- What kind of reading do you do?
- What kind of readings did I miss?
- What would you add or subtract to these categories?
- How do these categories apply to possible apologetic arguments? For example, if somebody cares about the big picture, would describing how something could be history really help or matter?