But I like the idea of Nephi seeing everything as cyclical archetypes. Mormon does the same thing, so it makes some sense that it goes all the way back to Nephi. That may be part of why Mormon liked what he saw on the small plates so much that he decided to add them to his record.

About authority, I agree it gets more complicated after Mosiah dies. But even once Alma becomes the “head” of the church, it is pretty clear he still submits to Mosiah as the ultimate authority, such as when he goes to him first about what to do to admonish people who have committed serious sins. Even the source of Alma’s authority is clear, directly stated in Mosiah 26: “Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.” So it’s not odd that he becomes a leader in the church: Mosiah, the patriarch, anointed him to become such.

After Mosiah’s death, Alma starts out with the same patriarchal system, but based on judges, not kings. When Alma decides to give up the judgment seat, though, he changes things, by not also giving up priesthood rule, creating the first separation of secular rule and religious rule.

As for Samuel the Lamanite, it seems pretty clear that most Nephites, even righteous ones, DIDN’T value him the same as Nephite prophets, which is why Jesus had to specifically command them to include the fulfillment of Samuel’s prophecies in their record.

I’ll need to read over Alma 11-14 again, but every time I have read it, I have not seen it as being focused on priesthood authority, like others have. It is all about Jesus Christ, and relating His role to the role of priests that the people were already familiar with, paralleling what the author of Hebrews did. However, it may point to Lehi’s justification for breaking the ritual law: he may have felt he was a Melchizedek priest. Or it is very possible that rationalization was added much later.

Regardless, as we have already seen, Alma’s authority has been explicitly stated in-text to come from Mosiah. The fact that most people point to Alma 13 when talking about priesthood line of authority shows just how absent the concept is from The Book of Mormon.

I also agree the subject is more complicated in The Doctrine and Covenants, and is not necessarily consistent throughout. I think there’s a reason church lessons focus on just a couple of sections when emphasizing the importance of priesthood lines of authority, because only a few sections are all that concerned about it. But I think those couple of sections do state the concept pretty explicitly, unlike The Book of Mormon, which doesn’t.

Sorry to disagree. Also, for me, saying the narrative does not give enough information is the same as saying something is not present in the book. It is clear that as long as there were kings among the Nephites, the kings ordained the priests, even when, like with Zeniff’s people, branches of Nephites broke off and formed new societies. It is clear prophets existed outside of this structure, like Abinadi, but it is also clear that the main society did not accept their authority (Abinadi was burned for heresy). Those who did accept them, like Alma, did so based on the power of their words and testimony, not on being convinced they were the rightful heirs to some line of authority. And even Alma, after accepting Abinadi as prophet, still later accepted Mosiah as the source of his authority in the church.

To me, this seems to parallel the structure that seems present in the Hebrew Bible and the pre-Resurrection New Testament—there is an acknowledged priesthood authority, but prophets exist outside that line, and the head of the priesthood oversees ordinances, not doctrines, and may become corrupt over time.

That’s the doctrine The Book of Mormon teaches, but we understandably tend to ignore it, since it would be a threat to our modern order. Imagine what would happen if someone said that the Quorum of the Twelve could be wrong, and that a true prophet could arise from anywhere? But that is the kind of system of revelation The Book of Mormon teaches: one that comes from God, not from societal structures, and which can transcend society when necessary. The Hebrew Bible and New Testament are second and third witnesses to The Book of Mormon’s system. As is even The Doctrine and Covenants, which, as you suggested, is more complicated than we tend to portray it, as seen, for example, by the structure of common consent, where the members are given the obligation to reject anything that comes from their leaders that does not come from God.

While I’m not sure it can entirely be divorced from the political aspect, I think Nephi reads scriptures as archetypes that repeat on numerous settings and scales. I’ve mentioned how his Christology largely is reading Isaiah’s political prophesy of Israel on a personal moral level for instance. And I think the restoration theology later in Alma is more or less the same thing. (Hell = disasporah on a cosmological/ontological level) Given that I’d expect he’d be very prone to read the separation of the Lehites in terms of a repetition of these same patterns. Either on an Exodus motif or the Assyrian/Babylonian invasion motifs. If, as Terry speculated, Laman is a Deutoronomist sympathizer and perhaps sympathetic to Zedekiah’s Egyptian connections, then he’d see it as a repeat of the struggle of the prophets in Jerusalem. (Which is why I don’t think one can separate out the political easily)

Mirrorrorrim (64) I suspect we’re seeing in Nephi a remnant of the more patriarchal (in the Bendoin sense not feminist sense) structure with him assuming de facto place in the family after Laman and Lemuel leave and Lehi dies. This would be in addition to his place as King. But I agree it’s a bit odd the relationship between Jacob and Nephi. Nephi is much more hopeful about the new land too whereas I get the feeling Jacob sees it all as a disaster of a sort. Basically they escape Jerusalem and then repeat its problems.

I also think Nephi turns to making midrash on Isaiah because again he sees everything as repetition of archetypes. To him Isaiah + Exodus is everything. I’d note that the repetitious nature of his merkabah ties into this. To him it’s the same vision as his father (albeit with angelic commentary) and part of it is him being told John will get the same vision. So I think his midrashic expansions are important.

Not brought up yet so I’ll mention it here – I also think Nephi’s midrashic expansion on Isaiah ought inform how we read the Isaiah in the Bible. I think Nephi’s willingness to do this suggests that prophetic texts weren’t seen as static. This would justify exilic and post-exilic expansions and redactions to the Isaiah text much like scholars tell us happen. i.e. the similarities and differences in Isaiah far from being a problem are evidence that Nephi was doing exactly what scholars claimed happened with Isaiah. Something to keep in mind. The whole “likening the scriptures” may be much more radical than most take it. (Something to keep in mind when considering Mormon and Moroni’s roles as well)

Mirrorrorrim (64) Finally, a bit about authority. In 2 Nephi 5, Nephi says that he is the one who consecrated Jacob and Joseph as priests. I think we want the priesthood in The Book of Mormon to match up with something we would recognize a modern equivalency for, with lines of authority, etc., in a way that imposes something entirely foreign to the text itself.

One thing to keep in mind is how later merkabah texts that parallel Nephi’s often involve bestowal of authority (and often meeting Enoch, Elijah or Moses). While I doubt that’s Nephi’s claim to authority (which I think comes from a still surviving school of prophets in Jerusalem) it’s an other possibility.

Mirrorrorrim (64) Through the end of Mosiah’s life, it seems pretty clear that the Nephites function on a patriarchal order of priesthood, with the king serving as patriarch, and appointing whomever he wants to the priesthood, with the king serving as ultimate head of the church.

I’m far from convinced of this. There are a lot of interesting gaps in the text just where one wishes there were information. For instance where did Abinadi come from? How about Samuel the Lamanite? The common approach is to assume they are wandering figures arising just with inspiration and a charismatic preaching power, as most take Jeremiah and company to be. I suspect there’s more to it. Certainly it’s odd how Alma returns to the Nephite homeland and becomes head of the church. Likewise that whole bit I keep referring to in Alma 11-14 suggests much more structure than we get described. I bet there is a lot more we just don’t know about.

Mirrorrorrim (64) Proper authority is a Doctrine and Covenants concept, not one from The Book of Mormon, at least as far as I can tell. Maybe you have seen some things I have missed.

I think the D&C makes things more complex than you suggest. First D&C 46 offers a non-hierarchal amount of power. As a practical way this is power in an odd fashion. Second as I’ve noted D&C 84 has that odd Sons of Aaron and Moses bit that parallels some scholarly theories about pre-exilic authority (and conflicts). Third, there does appear to be elements of hierarchy at times – if only following in some odd ways the levitical practices. (Perhaps without sons of Aaron among the Nephites) The whole way the law of Moses was followed remains a big mystery in the Book of Mormon. We have elements of course (the priests Alma was a part of under Noah for instance) and then hints of practice (theory that Benjamin’s address was a Sukkot or feast of the tabernacles).

But again the narrative just doesn’t give us enough information. I don’t think that means we can say it’s not present in the book. (Again especially given Alma 13 which is explicit there is a structure)

Admittedly we don’t have conflict over who was ordained by whom. (Unlike say places where Paul tells various cities to be on guard of false teachers pretending to have authority in the NT) This may be due to the Book of Mormon frankly taking place among a much smaller population and region.

None of this is to deny that the Nephites would have transformed whatever traditions they had. And as we’ve noted, it’s completely unclear exactly what kind of Judaism they practiced even in Israel. Lots of speculation among scholars about what pre-exilic Judaism was like. Whatever there was would have been transformed in America.

Also, while the way chapter headings are arranged makes this hard to tell (the newest edition of the scriptures is better, since it removes the italics from headings that are part of the original scriptural text), it seems that the division between 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi was one made by the original author, not by Joseph Smith or a later Latter-day Saint editor. 2 Nephi begins with the same kind of Nephi-written summary that 1 Nephi started with.

The summary, “An account of the death of Lehi. Nephi’s brethren rebel against him. The Lord warns Nephi to depart into the wilderness. His journeyings in the wilderness, and so forth,” is part of the original text, not a scholarly chapter heading.

That, to me, makes it an even stranger place for there to be a division. It almost seems like, at first, Nephi was planning on having.

Interestingly, though, the historical narrative of 1 Nephi ends with Nephi making the large, more secular plates, after which it switches to Nephi’s sermon, just as 2 Nephi’s historical narrative ends with Nephi making the second set of more spiritual plates, then switches over to sermons and scripture quotations. I’m not sure entirely what to make of that, though. Perhaps for 1 Nephi, Nephi is taking the most relevant parts from the large plates, while 2 Nephi is entirely new, distinct material? If so, that would make sense why the division between books seems so arbitrary.

Also, while I think it is fine to go beyond the text, I think we should adhere to the text as the default interpretation. In 2 Nephi 11, Nephi gives a rationale for including the words of both Isaiah and Jacob:

“And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words. For I will liken his words unto my people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him.
“And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him; wherefore, I will send their words forth unto my children to prove unto them that my words are true. Wherefore, by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words.”

Nephi clearly states that he is including the words of both Isaiah and Nephi because they have had visions of the same Redeemer Nephi has had visions about. Not because Jacob became High Priest over spiritual matters while Nephi was over secular ones, but because he was a second witness. Again, Nephi seems, by my reading, to adhere very closely to the ideas in our modern Pentateuch, specifically here about having multiple witnesses of things. So I don’t know if it is direct humility, but it does at least demonstrate Nephi’s willingness to not be the sole voice of authority for his people.

That also seems to be why Nephi chose the particular parts of sermons that he did In 2 Nephi 11, Nephi specifically states that the foregoing sermon by Jacob was longer than what Nephi chose to include. So, whatever the original reason for giving the sermon, whether it was a religious holiday or not, Nephi was not just recording it for its own and history’s sake.

Finally, a bit about authority. In 2 Nephi 5, Nephi says that he is the one who consecrated Jacob and Joseph as priests. I think we want the priesthood in The Book of Mormon to match up with something we would recognize a modern equivalency for, with lines of authority, etc., in a way that imposes something entirely foreign to the text itself. Through the end of Mosiah’s life, it seems pretty clear that the Nephites function on a patriarchal order of priesthood, with the king serving as patriarch, and appointing whomever he wants to the priesthood, with the king serving as ultimate head of the church. This is a system common in many ancient societies, including Christianity once it was embraced by the Roman Empire. Jacob received his authority from Nephi, because Nephi was the king. Alma I received his authority from Noah, because he was the king. And so on. I find no hint in The Book of Mormon to encourage a reading of either a traditional Israelite priesthood based on lineage or a modern Latter-day Saint Melchizedek order with particular lines of authority. I can find absolutely zero evidence that Nephites cared about such things. The closest example is with Limhi’s people and baptism, but that seems to be more about Limhi feeling that Noah, due to his wickedness, had lost his right of patriarchal rule, tied closely to the sentiments Limhi expressed in Mosiah 7 about the people reaping the poison of their own chaff which they have thrown into the wind, and also seems to be why Limhi was so quick to give up his kingship after uniting with the people of Mosiah.

When prophets did arise outside of the patriarchal system, like Abinadi, they seem to have been uniquely called by God, and, like Lehi, felt free to disregard established ritualistic laws.

Proper authority is a Doctrine and Covenants concept, not one from The Book of Mormon, at least as far as I can tell. Maybe you have seen some things I have missed.

A question that intrigues me more, is where Jacob got the “authority” to be the High Priest. I’m not sure where the Levites or the line of Aaron is in all this. I suspect that’s where the Melchizedek analysis spoken of by Alma comes in. Again, I refer to Josh G. Mathews’ book, “Melchizedek’s Alternative Priesthood Order” (Eisenbraun’s 2013) for an interesting theory that the Aaronic Priesthood was subordinate to Melchizedek and that Moses got the Melchizedek Priesthood from Jethro. I’ve been looking at the Melchizedek material that’s come out since Jack Welch’s 1990 article in By Study and Also By Faith (FARMS/Deseret Book, 1990) available at the MI website. There’s quite a bit and the younger scholars like Mathews are exploring new realms about Melchizedek and his priesthood. (Sorry James to be getting a bit off the 1 Nephi track).

Can I put in a plug for Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (MI). Welch speculates that the Sherem/Jacob encounter is a temple palace conflict with Sherem the designated palace spokesman sent to deal with Jacob. Further speculation that Jacob’s sermon on concubines et al. had not gone over well at the palace.

Nephi was over the secular arm and Jacob was the High Priest. I don’t think it had anything to do with Nephi’s humility (which I don’t think he would view in the same context we do anyway). The division of the Kingship and High Priest office is something for another time, but my impression is that the King Mosiahs and Benjamin functioned in both of those offices (or at least were over them). That is certainly NOT a Second Temple element. Mosiah II divided the offices and perhaps it was something that Nephi and Jacob had between them that the Nephites went away from until Mosiah restored the difference. Of course, he was also the last king in a kind of reverse to what happened in Israel and Judah.

I’d be interested to know if anyone here has alternative ideas she or he has considered beyond the political ones for why Nephi focuses so much on Laman and Lemuel.

I believe Nephi has a unified theme throughout 1-2 Nephi, a big part of which is following the Spirit no matter what, which is what he starts and finished his narrative with. It is interesting to me that there is a clear break between 1 Nephi-2 Nephi 5, which contains a lot of history, and 2 Nephi 6-33, which contains essentially no history, besides the historical portions contained in Isaiah. Because of the clear separation, I am interested to know whether the two parts were composed simultaneously or sequentially—did Nephi tell all the history he wanted, then switch to sermons and scripture quotations, or was he constructing both at the same time?

Also, why end the history where he does? The narrative does not end with Nephi leaving Laman’s group. Instead, he goes on for most of a chapter, giving a general history of the new society he built, including unusually specific information about the creation of swords. The final historical account Nephi relates is an account of his decision to create the record of 1-2 Nephi. After that, he just briefly mentions that another decade passed, and that his people had wars with Laman’s, giving no details whatsoever.

The culmination of the history, then, appears to be the creation of the plates, which he clearly considers to have a distinct significance from the other secular plates. In a way, then, perhaps Nephi’s journey from 1 Nephi 1 through 2 Nephi 5 is not one about becoming king, but one about his path to the point where he is finally able to write the book of scripture we are reading. It is, if you will, a sample template for the journey a person takes to become a prophet. If that idea is correct, then it goes well with the anarchism Nephi promotes in his first story: he is acknowledging he has become a prophet, but is giving a template so every other person can become a prophet, too, exactly the same as he is. In addition to his own, he gives examples from both Jacob’s and Isaiah’s prophecies, too.

If Lehi and Nephi were specifically followers of Jeremiah’s school of thought, then Nephi may be trying to realize Jeremiah’s goal in Jeremiah 31: “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

But with all that said, I’m still not sure how the focus on Laman and Lemuel fits into that kind of plan. Except, maybe, that I have always wondered why 1 Nephi 7 is included, since it just seems to repeat, in less detail, a lot of the same things that happened in 1 Nephi 1-5. However it DOES uniquely include Nephi chastising his brothers about how they have free choice, and that if they really want to return to Jerusalem, they should just do so. Most ancient societies, including Israel, had strong concepts of communal spiritual interdependence. This was probably the biggest factor that led to Roman persecution of Christians, and the Hebrew Bible is also full of stories of the sins of a few bringing judgment on the many, such as Numbers 25, where Phinehas stops a plague from God by killing two people who had been committing sin. With Nephi’s focus on individual spirituality, and a one-on-one relationship with God’s Spirit, perhaps Laman and Lemuel are there to show that, when someone breaks God’s commandments, it does NOT cause the entire society to suffer, so there is no need to kill the person, or to otherwise communally atone for their actions. Laman curses himself and his own posterity, but Nephi is unhurt. This would have been a radical notion for the time, but one that seems an essential precursor to the kind of spirituality Nephi is promoting, where people are free to break societal spiritual laws when God commands them without fear of reprisal.