E.D., I also assumed a temple focus and think your questions would make for a very interesting discussion.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/16/1/S00007-50cf96ad9a82c3Laban-Lar.pdf

The article argues and illustrates that virtually every detail in Nephi’s account of this event serves the rhetorical purpose of affirming Nephi’s (versus Laman and Lemuel’s) right to rule. God declares in 2: 22 that Nephi will be made a ruler over his brothers. Then as chapter 3 opens, both Lehi and God (through lots) give Laman an opportunity to demonstrate that he is worthy to be king. Laman fails and at the end of the chapter uses a rod, symbol of royal power, to beat Nephi and Sam. An angel stops the beating and declares that Laman has forfeited his right to rule. Immediately thereafter in chapter 4 Nephi leaves, alone, to get the brass plates. As the article shows, details in the slaying narrative frame Nephi as God’s chosen leader by echoing Moses’ slaying of the Egyptian and closely matching David’s slaying of Goliath. Nephi acquires the sword of Laban and the brass plates, which become preeminent symbols of sovereignty among the Nephites. Bearing the plates/law in his arms like Moses, Nephi leads captive Israel (symbolized by the slave Zoram) out of bondage, into the desert beside the Red Sea, and on to the Promised Land. Nephi and Zoram make a covenant that signifies the covenant all Nephites make with their king.
The article argues that any event includes thousands of details that could be incorporated into its narration. Thus, the literal details can be selected and arranged (as in this case) to communicate through the literal a particular symbolic meaning. The force of this story, especially for its original and most important audience, flows from the fact that literal events bear such clear symbolic/political meaning.

Fellow Mormon and eminent professor of literature at the University of Chicago, Wayne Booth, was an especially influential advocate of reading texts rhetorically.

Literalism’s appeal is intoxicating because it obviates the need for thinking and sidesteps the vexing problems of nuance, ambiguity, paradox and uncertainty. It is safe to assume to that scriptural literalism’s siren song will continue to enchant the church as an institution and the lion’s share of its members for many years to come.

Humans want to tell tall tales, especially about the divine. Yet my personal experiences with God are much different than many of the miraculous scriptural accounts. I can’t prove that any one of these scriptural accounts didn’t literally happen, but through scientific discovery and textual criticism we are learning so much that deconstructs the legendary stories that scriptures contain.

Are you recommending that I naively continue to perpetuate many of these myths just because I risk missing out on the narrow possibility that God perhaps did defy natural laws and intervene in some inexplicable way? I think it’s better to acknowledge the likelihood of fabricated stories, and to focus on realistic ways that we can connect with God today, and not so intently focus on retaining fantastical narratives of the past.

The highest guide to understanding the scriptures is to follow the same Spirit by which they were written

How do we determine which spirit in which they were written? Might delusional and deceptive be termed as spirits of writing? For instance, might we consider the possibility that early Hebrew scribes wrote the story of Noah and the flood either with the intent to deceive other members of the Hebrew nation or because they were under a delusion about nature and history? We have modern-day examples of people who seem to deliberately deceive others in the name of religion, Sri Sathya Sai Baba being a prime example. While alive he performed all sorts of magic tricks, which have been exposed by rationalists and skeptics, giving naive followers the impression that he possessed supernatural or special spiritual powers. I have every reason to believe that fraudsters existed in the past, some of whom may have written things which they duped others into believing was holy writ. Also, might schizophrenic be appropriately termed as a spirit of writing (maybe a subcategory of delusional)? No small number of human beings suffer from schizophrenia (according to schizophrenia.com, about one percent of the human population). Might a person writing down words that s/he claimed were divine revelations have been undergoing a schizophrenic episode?