Narrative/Text: The biographical portion of Nephi’s narrative—how he developed into a great spiritual and political leader—now resumes. Befitting this narrative shift from revelation to history, the 1830 version begins a new chapter at this point.
While Nephi may have had a different intent, his historical vignettes explain as much about the tensions with his older brothers as they do his own history. Nephi is a younger brother, and the force of culture dictated that the oldest son occupied the position of leader (and inheritor). Nephi continues to describe situations in which he is in violation of that cultural expectation. When the brothers go for the plates, it is Nephi who is successful, a particularly painful admission since the other brothers failed. Now as Nephi returns from his vision he finds his elder brothers squabbling over the meaning of Lehi’s dream. In this episode, Nephi explains their questions. What he does not make clear is the cultural expectation that his older brothers should explain scripture to him. Once again he places himself in conflict with his brothers. We should not be surprised to find that they frequently did not wish him well (and worse).
Scripture: Verses 2–3 underline the common problem in scriptural understanding of different interpretations and consequent disputations. The key to resolving such disputes is not in further scholarship. The key is not in newly found manuscripts. They key is not in esoteric analysis. The key is that these things are “hard to be understood, save a man should inquire of the Lord.” Ultimately, our understanding of the gospel depends on receiving answers from the Lord.
This is not to say that study of the scriptures is futile. In fact, much scriptural study has legitimate purposes unrelated to understanding the things of God. Instead, scriptural documents can legitimately be the focus of literary, historical, linguistic, or cultural inquiry. But if someone approaches scripture as scripture, study that lacks the guidance of the Holy Ghost can result in disputations, none of which may deepen the student’s understanding of truth (naturally, many who profess to have followed this route still engage in disputes, since theology, as a field, is just as susceptible to disagreement as history or anthropology). The solution remains the same. True doctrine and true meanings can be found only in inspiration from the Lord.
Variant: The final phrase of verse 3 read “as they had ought.” According to Skousen, during Joseph Smith’s 1837 editing, he “edited 16 of 29 examples of ‘had ought’ and its negative ‘had not ought’. For the ones he changed, the had was deleted; if there was a not, it was placed after the ought (giving ‘ought not’). It appears that Joseph may have become aware of some of his non-standard dialect and replaced it with the more standard form.