There is a particularly evocative verse in the Book of Helaman, starting in chapter 10 it reads:
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.)
Average Orthodox:
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.)
Critical historical:
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 The Nephites and Lamanites existed in a time and place, but the text, like all historical documents shows the bias and weakness of the author.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?
Wheat & Tares 
What about Historical Hopeful? Where you believe the text is true, you haven’t seen enough to make you believe that isn’t true but you realize that history is complicated and ugly.
So you’re hopeful that it’s true and act accordingly but know that there’s more to history than the story that gets told.
Of the 3 categories offered, I’m probably closest to a critical historical reader. As I see it, if you truely take the book for what it claims to be, it is the only way to read it. There are many “teachings” in the BoM that most members reject without realizing it, so I think there is really more of a spectrum. The hard part is being self aware enough to see where you lie.
I am more of the critical historical reader. I think these are pretty good categories. I also like the idea of Hopeful Historical.
I like historical hopeful too.
I definitely feel like you can be critical historical and apply that to the big picture view as well. That is, part of the message of the Book of Mormon is about the perils of clannish, ethnocentric, and even racist views. If you take the Nephites as being paragons of virtue, the biggest issue isn’t history, but that you will almost inevitably draw poor conclusions about morality, religiosity, and so on.
I read it as meaning Nephi got the impression (spiritual impression) he should leave while the leaving was an option, and that he was led by the Spirit as to where he went to avoid getting stoned/arrested/beat up. I also consider it a possibility that the Spirit was teleporting him, I just find it very unlikely. I also get the impression that parts of the BOM were summarized so quickly and simplistically (by Mormon) that a lot of nuance and probably very enlightening material was left out. Am I Average Orthodox or Critical Historical? I’m not particularly well educated in the type of material listed for the Critical Historical.
Using your categories, I’m Big Picture when it comes to the Book of Mormon, but a mix of Big Picture and Critical Historical when it comes to the Bible.
Nice post.
I enjoy showing my kids how Nephi apparated there 😉 But I fall into the middle category and find that unusual among the orthodox bunch in my Utah ward GD class…
Interesting, I’ve always read this as the people reviling against Nephi ie badmouthing him, trying to arrest him, and Nephi evading arrest, as people do. They then seek to prevent him preaching through a legal process, and he evades arrest by keeping one step ahead of the game. Probably too many ninja movies.
1. “God breathed” is an essentially literal translation of θεόπνευστος or “theopneustos” (theo- = God; -pneustos from pneo which is “breathed out”) as it occurs in 2 Tim 3:16. The KJV loosely translates this as “inspired by God,” but most modern translations go for the more literal rendition.
2. Plenty of “people in other religions” who would use the phrase “God Breathed” do so knowing plenty about the text’s production history.
My point being, using “God breathed” to describe scripture is not some weird evangelical pop jargon. It’s the actual word used in the Bible.
Thanks Kullervo. I’m not a Biblical scholar and don’t know Hebrew so that was some great background information. I included the term because of the time spent on my mission in Texas. God breathed wasn’t used by people there as some nuanced point based on Hebrew, but was simply part of the vocabulary used by Biblical fundamentalists.
Interesting categories.
Although I really have no problem with the idea of Nephi being teleported away by the Spirit, I think back to a KSL special I saw between conference sessions twenty years ago or so about missionaries trying to leave Germany shortly before the outbreak of WWII (I’ve never been able to find anything about this special since then). There was one instance of a Nazi soldier making an Elder empty all his pockets and set the contents on a table so he could search for his train tickets. The tickets were there in plain sight, but the Nazi never once saw them in his fervent searching. I would imagine something similar happened with Nephi to enable his escape.
I also find it interesting that so much of Helaman 5 talks about fire, but usually within some form of the phrase “as if by fire.” I think there probably was an actual pillar at some point, but I’ve always pictured that chapter as more of a “burning of the Spirit” than anything else.
I do think a lot of miracles in the scriptures are much more simple than a lot of LDS envision them, but I still think they’re miraculous nonetheless.
Greek, not Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek. And “God breathed” is not a nuanced point, it’s the literal translation of what Paul wrote about scripture in 2 Tim 3:16. The reason that the “Biblical fundamentalists” you encountered used it as part of their vocabulary is that it’s the word Paul used (probably coined). And while it’s possible that you spoke to individuals who had no sense of where the Biblical text comes from (just as there are plenty of individual Mormons who have simple ideas about Mormonism), those individuals used that word because they are part of a faith tradition that does use the Bible and knows an insane amount about the Biblical text, including it’s history, and nevertheless believe that “all scripture is God-breathed,” like Paul said.
The interesting thing for me about discussions like this is the historical perspective of apologists in regards to this type of thinking. The Church has had to pull back from historical truth because of the advance of science and how with each new discovery truth claims have found to be wanting. The new line of thinking seems to be it is ok to give up historical truth because we are a religion and somehow religion is outside of historical truth.Does anyone know when this type of apologetics started? I would be interested in its origins.
Take a break Kullervo. I was being nice the first time (hence my sloppiness between Hebrew and Greek), but you are getting aggressive and pettifogging over a minor point. (Your rebuttal: ITS NOT A MINOR POINT ITS A BIG DEAL. HERES SOME GREEK FOR YOU!!!! ) Its great that you think you need to defend entire faith communities against my point. In my experience that phrase is associated with the exact opposite, fundamentalists who don’t know the Bible but know the phrase “God breathed” the same way that the average person knows some Latin because they’ve been to court and watched a few episodes of Law and Order. Dropping a few phrases doesn’t mean they know anything about Roman history or the development of laws, it just means that habeus corpus, amicus, vice versa, and god breathed in the Bible belt have filtered down into the popular usage. (I could probably come up with a better example if I cared.) I appreciate your point, it doesn’t seem needed as I wasn’t belittling other communities, but used a phrase that I think Mormon fundamentalists might use if they were in a different community. You might use another phrase, but based on vast experience, I think its accurate. As they say in the Chinese histories I read: mùkōngyīqiè
I also like historical hopeful. That’s the category I think I’d put myself in, though I definitely have critical historical viewpoints in some things.
When you apply these categories to apologetics, I feel like the description you gave for critical historical is old-school FARMS, while the big picture is Loyd Ericson’s “historicity isn’t relevant” position from the recent podcast. Maybe that’s what rubbed me a little wrong, as I feel that those are two opposite ends of a massive spectrum in apologetics. Historical hopeful kind of helps to fill in the gap. But even then, depending on the particular scripture, you can have a single individual position themselves in different categories (like Cody). I think there are more apologists who would accept a big picture approach to Book of Abraham than with the Book of Mormon.