Interpreting Interpreter: Nephi’s Leadership

The Takeaway

Ellis argues that Nephi’s transition to the logistical leadership of Lehi’s band occurred at the Camp of the Broken Bow, based on the event’s symbolic and practical considerations and the subsequent changes in Lehi and Nephi’s roles.

The Summary

In this article, Godfrey J. Ellis explores various proposals for when Nephi assumed logistical leadership of the Lehite band—not necessarily acting as their sovereign, but taking responsibility for conducting and guiding the group. He considers the following four options:

• In the City of Nephi. It is clear that Nephi was acting as leader by the time he and those who followed him founded the City of Nephi, “[causing them] to be industrious” in a variety of contexts, including agriculture, manufacturing, and construction. Though he appears to avoid actual kingship, he “did for them according to that which was in my power” and was looked to “as a king or a protector”. Ellis suggests that Nephi had likely already been leader for a number of years, rather than taking on the mantle when the city was founded.
  
• At the death of Lehi. Given the patriarchal nature of Hebrew society, it would seem natural to assume that Lehi retained leadership of the band until his death, and Ellis does believe he would have retained his status as the spiritual and emotional leader. Lehi’s death does precipitate a leadership crisis, but Ellis suggests that “nothing really changed other than cosmetics,” and argues that Nephi had already been leader for some time before the patriarch’s death.
  
• At the execution of Laban. Citing a proposal by Val Larsen, Ellis discussed the suggestion that the killing of Laban was itself the act of a sovereign, one with a political purpose and involving the symbols of Nephite sovereignty (i.e., the sword of Laban and the brass plates). Despite these symbolic ties to kingship, Ellis asserts that Nephi was not yet guiding or directing the group, let alone acting as a “supreme ruler” or “monarch” as sovereignty would imply, and he obtains the brass plates to deliver them to his father rather than claim them as a sovereign.
  
• At the Camp of the Broken Bow. This option posits that Nephi took on the tasks of directing and coordinating the group after the breaking of Nephi’s steel bow, the chastisement of Lehi, and Nephi’s creation of a new bow, taking the initiative in solving the band’s existential crisis.
  

Ellis spends the remainder of the article arguing on behalf of the last option, with Nephi assuming de-facto leadership following the events connected to the broken bow. He considers all previous signs of leadership as foreshadowing what would occur at and following the camp, noting a number of changes that occur in its aftermath. Nephi, at the direction of the Liahona, ascends to the top of a mountain, which may have been symbolic of a heavenly and temple-oriented ascent, in addition to a place he could find game, suggesting to Ellis that he may have had an unrecorded spiritual experience on that mount. Also, the symbolism involved in the literal crafting of a new bow may have represented leadership, being a weapon of royalty, and the bow’s breaking and recreation could have symbolized the transfer of authority from Lehi to Nephi.

Lehi himself experienced a chastisement, having succumbed to murmuring alongside Nephi’s brothers. Nephi takes on the role of admonishing and preaching to his family in the midst of that murmuring. Though Nephi humbly asks his father where he should go to find food, it is his father who was humbled and “was truly chastened” after Nephi’s preaching, with “chastened” meaning “to correct by punishment” both today and in 1828. For Ellis, this suggests that there were consequences for Lehi’s actions–similar to when figures like Moses, Saul, and David had been chastised—consequences meant to teach him and encouraging repentance. Given his behavior, it may have been a relief for him to transfer day-to-day leadership responsibilities to Nephi, and it’s clear that Lehi’s final state was a happy one.

Ellis notes various ways in which the power structure of the band changed after the events at the camp. Following Ishmael’s death complaints are directed not just to Lehi but to Nephi as well, complaints that suggest Nephi had been giving directions and guidance as a “ruler”. Lehi also begins to fade somewhat from the record, mentioned by name only once during the crossing of the ocean, and with only a few indirect mentions. The revelation to build a boat comes to Nephi rather than Lehi, and it is Nephi who deals with his brother’s rebellion after being asked to help construct it. Nephi also has to be bound in order for Laman and Lemuel to gain control the ship, and he was the one guiding the ship afterward.

Nephi’s brothers would not have accepted his leadership without resentment, and the Lamanites would go on to record that Laman and Lemuel were wronged “in the wilderness”, suggesting such wrongs (presumably the slight of being passed over for leadership) happened sometime after they left Jerusalem but before entering the New World. All references to Nephi’s leadership in the promised land are in the past tense, leadership that likely weighed heavily on his mind and on his soul.

As Ellis concludes:

“The reader can decide if this paper has added in some small measure to our understanding of Lehi and Nephi’s leadership… This paper hopefully strengthens our commitment to trust in the Lord even as we face great challenges, just as the Lehites did because of the breaking of the bow in the desert.”

The Reflection

Ellis’ proposal represents a bit of a scriptural detective story, and it’s interesting following the clues Nephi has left behind. The fact that we could be having such deep conversations about the timing of Nephi’s leadership speaks, I think, to the text’s authenticity: it’s hard to imagine Joseph producing that kind of nuanced subtext on his first real foray into writing, and experienced authors would probably make a bigger deal out of Nephi taking on the mantle of leadership. In my view, only the actual Nephi, telling his actual story, would give us the text we have, one where his own leadership is simultaneously highlighted and downplayed, with enough subtle clues for us to sniff out that kind of a leadership transition.