Textual: Our chapter 31 of 2 Nephi is also a separate chapter in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, and thus should be seen as a unit that Nephi intended to be a separate entity from previous (and subsequent) chapters. One of the interesting questions is the reason for the separation of our current chapters 31 and 32 (13 and 14 in the 1830 edition). The reason for this separation cannot be precisely delineated, but a reasonable case can be made that we have in our current chapters 31 and 32 two different sermons Nephi delivered on two different days, and are simply recorded in the text. The reasoning will be developed further along in the analysis.
Literary: Although Nephi is entering new information, and (as discussed at the end of the last chapter) is probably returning to a work he may have considered finished, he nevertheless attempts to integrate this new text into the narrative by providing a connecting introduction. This introduction links the previous material with the current material in a narrative, but not as a thematic extension. This new material is being added to the previous material on the plates, and Nephi takes care to make the text read from one section to another - but there is no connection between this chapter (and the next, though chapters 31 and 32 are clearly related) and the previous material. Nephi truly had finished his prophecy of the future of his people and this written work. Chapters 31 and 32 consist of completely new thematic material that, while it is related to material much earlier in the text, does not flow from any of the immediate material on the plates.
2 Nephi 31:2
2 Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.
2 Nephi 31:3
3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
Textual: The break into verses 2 and 3 is unfortunate, as the first sentence of verse 3 is so clearly required after the last sentence of verse 2. The separation into different verses lends a visual and unintended conceptual separation that should not be there.
Linguistic: Nephi declares that he delights in plainness, and this delight in plainness is a hallmark of Nephi’s writing and personal conception. We may presume that we understand what Nephi means, because we generally understand Nephi much more easily that Isaiah, but what does “plainness” mean to Nephi?
The connotations of “plainness” may derive from Joseph having seen the term used in the King James Version in 2 Corinthians. I provide a more or less complete unit from Paul’s discourse to the Corinthians so that we may see “plainness” in the Pauline context:
2 Cor. 3:6-16 (see plainness in verse 12)
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
I include such a large section of Paul to make a point about plainness. Paul is speaking in plainness but it certainly isn’t the kind of plainness we usually associate with Nephi. In Nephi we assume that plainness means understandability. In Paul, however, despite his “plainness,” the average English reader would have difficulty understanding the intricacies and meanings of the above passage.
Of course Paul could be rendered into an English version that might make for easier reading, but even Paul’s mode of argumentation is complex and rather foreign to the modern reader. Understanding that plainness may not necessarily be “plain,” we can now approach Nephi to attempt to understand his meaning of plainness.
I suggest that for Nephi, plainness is both used to mean “bold and piercing” as well as used as a contrast to a style that is not “plain” in that it is sufficiently literary that meaning may be misunderstood or ignored.
Nephi uses plainness in the “bold and piercing” meaning in the following example:
2 Ne. 9:47
47 But behold, my brethren, is it expedient that I should awake you to an awful reality of these things? Would I harrow up your souls if your minds were pure? Would I be plain unto you according to the plainness of the truth if ye were freed from sin?
In this usage, Nephi is not “plain” because he is explaining things simply, but rather because the effect and power of the words have hit a chord in his brothers that has begun to stir the first feelings of repentance. His words are causing pain. Nephi asks first if he would “harrow up your souls if your minds were pure?” In other words, they would not feel pain in his remonstration if they had no sin in them. Following this, Nephi is “plain unto you according to the plainness of the truth.” The context here, however, is not that Nephi is explaining anything, but rather that the pureness of what he is saying strikes the chord in them that does harrow their souls.
This is also the context in the following passage:
2 Ne. 33:5-6
5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written save he shall be of the spirit of the devil.
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.
Just as with Nephi’s brothers, plainness is capable of making men angry because it touches the guilt in their souls. The plainness is not just clarity, but a powerful statement of the truth of the Lord. This, is, of course, the very way in which the term was used in Paul to the Corinthians. Paul is referring to the power and boldness of the statement, not its comprehensibility.
Nephi also uses plainness in a mode closer to what we have presumed, that is, something that is easier to understand. Rather than simply meaning easier to understand, however, Nephi appears to contrast plainness as an alternative style of prophecy. In particular, Nephi is contrasting his style of prophecy to that of his father and to Isaiah.
2 Ne. 25:4
4 Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy. But I give unto you a prophecy, according to the spirit which is in me; wherefore I shall prophesy according to the plainness which hath been with me from the time that I came out from Jerusalem with my father; for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn.
The contrast to Lehi is implicit here, and is most explicit in Nephi’s recounting of his version of the Tree of Life dream. Lehi is a visionary man - a type of prophet to whom visions come as symbolic dreams (of which the Tree of Life dream is the most extensive example we have for Lehi). Nevertheless, visionary prophets were not readily understood, because their understanding of the symbols might be very different. One need only review the experiences of Joseph in Egypt to know that an interpreter of the dreams was more important than the dream itself.
In this implicit differentiation between Nephi and Lehi, Nephi is contrasting plainness with a long tradition in the Old World of incomprehensible prophecy. Not only are the dreams and visions in frequent need of an interpreter with the power of God, but the ancient world was full of examples of a dichotomy between the receiver of the message from the gods and the interpreter of that message. In the Greek tradition, oracles would have two important functionaries, the profetes and the mantis. The mantis would receive the communication from the god, but would typically speak something unintelligible. The profetes was the interpreter. Thus for at least the Greek world, the communication from the gods was presumed to be extra-human, and require an interpreter, for the pure communication must necessarily have been beyond man.
While the story of Moses and Aaron has Aaron as the spokesperson because Moses is not powerful in speech, it may also be that this dual appearance of prophet and interpreter better fit into the expectations of the ancient world.
Nephi appears to contrast his plainness with the need for an interpreter caused either by the extreme symbolic nature of visionary prophecy, as well as the highly symbolic literary prophecy of Isaiah:
2 Ne. 25:7
7 But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy, according to my plainness; in the which I know that no man can err; nevertheless, in the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass.
Nephi tells us that Isaiah’s prophecies are correct. They will be vindicated. What he does, however, is contrast his own prophecy with that of Isaiah, not in content, but in style. Nephi’s style is clearly not visionary (in fact Lehi is the only “visionary” prophet in the Book of Mormon - that style of prophecy appears to end with Lehi and the firm tie to the Old World) and is also clearly not symbolically complex. It is Nephi’s difficulty with symbols that drove him to require an interpretation of his father’s dream (which appears to have been perfectly clear to Lehi).
In the end, Nephi’s meanings of boldness and lack of symbolic trappings fuse into his usage of plainness as a description of the way he prophesies:
2 Ne. 32:7
7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.
Nephi’s words are plain because they do not require specialized learning of symbols. They are also plain because they are bold and direct. It is a preaching that may be understood by all who search it, and is a condemnation of those who “will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness.”