How else would one “liken [the scriptures] unto us” if we were not expected to try on the narrative, wear it, imagine how we would act and react?

“Like everyone else, I’m reading and writing here in a given context, with a background ethic and various personal commitments (which I consider to be faithful). That ethic includes a belief that—whatever Nephi’s designs—God intends for me to plumb the full depths of the record and not merely repeat ad nauseum a traditional, superficial, catechism. I’m moved by Thomas S. Monson’s final General Conference plea, which does not tell us to continually read the Book of Mormon, but to study it [FN2]. I can’t imagine doing so productively outside of bringing all of my might, mind, and strength to the reading. This includes my educational background and tools and personal experiences.”

Thank you for that. I have always felt this way about scripture, although my ability to study it in this way has developed considerably since I was young. In any event, I’ve probably never quite expressed it as cogently as you did here, and I appreciate your efforts thinking on the matter enough to produce this very cogent piece of language. It’s going into my quote file. :)

I wondered if you might some time develop this distinction: “I do think that reading Nephi as a prophet is different than reading while withholding judgment on his prophethood.” I found it odd, which I am finding through experience probably means that I am odd. Why do you think this is different? I really don’t see the difference, particularly since Nephi is busy preaching among the dead and is not setting current policy, for example. Of all scriptural authors, I approach Nephi as an individual, a friend, perhaps because he writes so personally. Whatever insights he was able to glean in his mortal sojourn he has left for us, I feel, must be understood as a message from a wise friend who’s been around the block a time or two. (But then, I view all prophets that way.)

I’m all in favor of careful readings that bring to light what might be otherwise be passed over — and I’m all in favor of careful readings that consider learnings from other sources. But I am concerned about readings (and reconstructions) that invent new narrative or encourage speculations or distractions — or raising questions for the sake of raising questions. And again, my concern exists on both sides, those that do it to weaken faith and those that do it to strengthen or supplement faith.

I know others do it, and I don’t want to ban them — to each his or her own — but we’re talking about different approaches, and I thought I would share my thoughts.

I’d say there are always multiple ways to read the text and what these sorts of readings ought do is raise questions. It’s rather rare they can answer them nor are they the only way to read the text.

Seeing Nephi as bitter is valid. Seeing Nephi as loyal is valid. Seeing Laman as willfully ignorant is valid. Seeing Laman as trying to do what he sees is just is valid. Humans are this complex, and to effectively liken the scriptures unto us, we need to see humans that resemble us, complex, inconsistent, simultaneously sympathetic and unsympathetic.

You might not be one of those who portrays Nephi as an unrighteous younger brother, but those who do will eagerly seize your narrative for their work of undermining faith. So even when the deconstructing is done by faithful people, I am still concerned for this reason (and because of the implicit reconstruction that almost always occurs, almost always with a sophisticated purpose of undermining faith). By the way, I am also troubled when people reconstruct in efforts to build faith — I’m equal opportunity when in comes in resisting those who add to the record based on their own suppositions.

All that said, I agree that there is little favorable treatment of Laman and Lemuel in the record.