King-men and Free-men, Is LDS anti-monarchy?


lines
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the book of Alma it talks about people who led a rebellion against the judges because they wanted to institute a monarchy. They were called King-men. The free-men were against the idea of having a monarchy.

The king-men betrayed the nephites and decided to collaborate with the lamanites.

So in this story the king-men were considered bad.

But my question is is were the king men bad because they wanted a monarchy or were they bad because they were traitors to the nephites? Is the book of mormon inherently opposed to the idea of monarchy?

Alma 51, contains story about free man and king men:

Alma 51Â*

IN the articles of faith Joseph SMith states:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"

And so I am not sure if LDS theology is anti-monarchy or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, God is against any form of government that places man in power over fellow man. At the same time, God also understands that a regular form of government is necessary for man since we aren't able to self-govern in a consistent manner.

both the Bible and the Book of Mormon speak out against royalty. the prophet Samuel in the OT rehearsed to all Israel the evils of having a king, but they persisted so they could 'be like the other nations'. Because God gave us the freedom to choose, he relented and set Saul to be the first King of Israel. In so doing, he comforted Samuel by telling him "They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me."

Prior to this, Israel was loosly governed by a series of Judges (twelve by name...interesting little point there...but I digress) that sequentially would bring Israel out of bondage to another nation for a time, only to see Israel relapse into unrighteousness and ultimately bondage once more.

finally, D & C section 134 lays out the current position of the LDS church on governments in general, and it is not a document that beats around the bush.

I can't find the verse at the moment, but somewhere it states that if the king is righteous, then it is good to have a king. Otherwise, to have a king is to put a grevious burden on the people. Maybe someone else can find it for me.

Edited by RipplecutBuddha
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the book of Alma it talks about people who led a rebellion against the judges because they wanted to institute a monarchy. They were called King-men. The free-men were against the idea of having a monarchy.

The king-men betrayed the nephites and decided to collaborate with the lamanites.

So in this story the king-men were considered bad.

But my question is is were the king men bad because they wanted a monarchy or were they bad because they were traitors to the nephites? Is the book of mormon inherently opposed to the idea of monarchy?

Alma 51, contains story about free man and king men:

Alma 51Â*

IN the articles of faith Joseph SMith states:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"

And so I am not sure if LDS theology is anti-monarchy or not.

No, the Book of Mormon is not inherently opposed to the idea of monarchy.

Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. (See Mosiah 29)

The kingmen were bad because they were rebellious and wanted to forcefully overthrow the Nephite government, against the will of the people. In any case, Mosiah 29 is good reading concerning the matter.

Also, the Book of Mormon, like our other scriptures, recognize Christ as the King over the kingdom of God on earth. He would definitively fit the bill described by Mosiah - being a righteous King. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the book of Alma it talks about people who led a rebellion against the judges because they wanted to institute a monarchy. They were called King-men. The free-men were against the idea of having a monarchy.

The king-men betrayed the nephites and decided to collaborate with the lamanites.

So in this story the king-men were considered bad.

But my question is is were the king men bad because they wanted a monarchy or were they bad because they were traitors to the nephites? Is the book of mormon inherently opposed to the idea of monarchy?

Alma 51, contains story about free man and king men:

Alma 51Â*

IN the articles of faith Joseph SMith states:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"

And so I am not sure if LDS theology is anti-monarchy or not.

the book of mormon is more set against monarchy or total monarchy for the most part as early on in the nephites reign they went from being a monarchy to something a little more democratic, mainly because the king that instituted this understood that a monarchy can be really good , if you have a good man as king, but on the flipside if you have an evil person about the only way out is through leaving ones homeland or through rebellion.

technically theres nothing bad aout a monarchy or dictatorship itself. the only problem is that it seats all or almost all the power with a person or very small group of individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the greater question is not the type of government that is best for the natural man in a fallen state - but following the resurrection of glory when those that love righteousness are united in Heaven - what type of government will we live there? Where there are no evil desires - will a "King" really be necessary? Will G-d govern with ultimate power and authority?

LDS theology is that those in the divine society of heaven that desired a G-d and King with ultimate power over all heaven and all citizens of heaven were rejected by the majority of the society of heaven and cast out. Also it is interesting that even traditional Christian theology indicates that it was not the Father by vulture of his supreme power that Lucifer and his hosts were cast out but rather by the leadership exercised by Michael.

I personally believe that many “good” people do not desire a salvation where agency in a Heavenly society means that they will govern themselves but rather they desire a salvation where a G-d is forever their governor, provider and protector. I believe Jesus taught that those that followed him would govern themselves and be free. I interpret that to mean that those that obtain such freedom and agency to live with G-d serve the Father and the Son not by compulsion or any law but out of love and desire only.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The King-men were not bad because they wanted a king, but because they sought to impose a dictatorship upon the people that would force them not to worship God.

King Mosiah II told the people that it would be good for them to have a king, if they could always have a good king. But then reminded them of King Noah and others, who became despots. It was better for the people to be free and responsible for themselves in such a state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LDS_Guy_1986

Ultimately, God is against any form of government that places man in power over fellow man.

What form of government doesn't have men in power over there fellow men?

You can't have government without someone in power over someone else.

Could you please clarify this for me because I am confused.

Thank You:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LDS_Guy_1986

In the book of Alma it talks about people who led a rebellion against the judges because they wanted to institute a monarchy. They were called King-men. The free-men were against the idea of having a monarchy.

The king-men betrayed the nephites and decided to collaborate with the lamanites.

So in this story the king-men were considered bad.

But my question is is were the king men bad because they wanted a monarchy or were they bad because they were traitors to the nephites? Is the book of mormon inherently opposed to the idea of monarchy?

Alma 51, contains story about free man and king men:

Alma 51Â*

IN the articles of faith Joseph SMith states:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"

And so I am not sure if LDS theology is anti-monarchy or not.

In my humble opinion, the free men were not against a monarchy they were against a monarchy being forced on them!

Any form of Government that is set in place without the consent of the governed is evil by nature. Of course a evil government is better than no government at all.

Seeing that man needs to be governed we submit to the government who's jurisdiction we are in whether it is just, corrupt, or tyrannical.

The LDS Church is pro government, monarchy, democracy, republic, dictatorship. We believe that men need to be governed and we are commanded to obey the Law of the Land multiple times in the D&C

So the Church is not anti-monarchy at all, the situation you mention in the BoM is preventing an insurrection from seating a King against the will of the people.

Thanks for the question!

I hope my answer helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel had already went down that path. And the Lord had also rehearsed to the people what would happen if Israel elected a King. The sin is that we do not profit from the errors of Israel. For GOD is the king of the people. Jesus said that if Israel elected a King like the nations around them..they would be taxed, that the king's court would be a burden on the people...and if the King became wicked...he would lead the people into wickedness...and so on....

1 Samuel 8:6 - But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

1 Samuel 8:7 - And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

1 Samuel 8:8 - According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this

day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

1 Samuel 8:9 - Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of

the king that shall reign over them.

-----------------------------------------------------

GOD is to be our King and Ruler on the earth. And to want someone else on the throne...is a rejection of GOD to rule over us. It is Rebellion. Even though Israel was warned by GOD they still did not fully realized what they were doing. But what excused could the LDS have if one day they wish to have any other ruler than GOD. The time is coming when God will be the Ruler and the only Ruler over us.

D&C 38:21 - But, verily I say unto you that in time ye shall have no king nor ruler, for I will be your king and watch over you.

So answer your question....When GOD appoints ruler and kings over us we are to obey them. But the time is coming when our Ruler and King will not be men but GOD Himself.

bert10

In the book of Alma it talks about people who led a rebellion against the judges because they wanted to institute a monarchy. They were called King-men. The free-men were against the idea of having a monarchy.

The king-men betrayed the nephites and decided to collaborate with the lamanites.

So in this story the king-men were considered bad.

But my question is is were the king men bad because they wanted a monarchy or were they bad because they were traitors to the nephites? Is the book of mormon inherently opposed to the idea of monarchy?

Alma 51, contains story about free man and king men:

Alma 51Â*

IN the articles of faith Joseph SMith states:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"

And so I am not sure if LDS theology is anti-monarchy or not.

Edited by bert10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What form of government doesn't have men in power over there fellow men?

You can't have government without someone in power over someone else.

Could you please clarify this for me because I am confused.

Thank You:confused:

To help you understand what I meant, let me remind you of the time in Israel after the passing of Joshua in the OT. During that period, there was no centralized government structure ruling over Israel. Instead there were periods when Israel was freed from bondage or tribute to other nations by Judges. At the same time, however, the living prophet was recognized as the top authority figure in all Israel. At this time, God was ultimately their ruler, as God directed them through the prophet.

During this time, as you read through Judges in the OT, you'll notice a similar pattern of righteousness, then pride, then falling captive to another nation that is observed in the Book of Mormon. Samson was one of the Judges that brought freedom to Israel. In time, however, Israel might have seen the other nations as being stronger because they had kings, and in order to stop the cycle of falling victim to the Phillistines yet again, they petitioned Samuel, then the prophet of God, to set a king over them.

What they failed to realize was that their weakness was not in lacking a king, but in lacking consistent righteousness as a nation, and as individuals. God released them twelve times during the time of the Judges with no indication I can think of that he would ever stop answering the prayers of the righteous....yet it was not enough for them. Rather than strive for personal righteousness, they chose the burden of kings. Despite the initial righteousness of each of Israel's first three kings...each one in his own way turned from the Lord and became a burden to the people.

Saul became prideful, impatient, and disobedient.

David became lustful and greedy.

Solomon became faithful to false gods and dumb idols rather than the Lord

In this example I can see that God would have preferred ruling over his chosen people himself, but because they desired something else, he allowed a change to be made according to the will of his children. A mark of a rather humble God, wouldn't you think.....allowing the voices of his children to place one of their own above them rather than saying "No, I am the Lord and I will govern you. It is better that I rule over you than you rule yourselves."?

Even though the Lord himself chose the best people for the position of king, each in turn failed to overcome their weaknesses....perhaps the power distracted them, or beguiled them into disobedience. Maybe each of these initially righteous men simply let down their guard, thinking they were above temptation. Whatever the reason, it displays that even the chosen of God can, and do fall from grace.

This is why God would have preferred leading his people himself...presenting a ruler and a governor that would never waver, never falter.

This is why I believe God is ultimately against men ruling over other men. He didn't want it to be this way, but because Israel wanted 'to be like the other nations', he allowed us the choice, and is still doing all he can to make it the best situation possible.

I believe God would be far happier if we sought his leadership in all aspects of our lives. As it is we see problems, we turn to our governments for help and what happens? Still more corruption of good men and women in power. Think of it...we could be letting God guide us in all our needs...the invitation has never been withdrawn from us. As it is we tend to approach God in spirital matters, then get up and approach the President of the USA, or our state senators in physical matters. Is there any wonder we keep getting let down by our fellow men placed in power over us?

"How oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chicks and yet ye would not, but behold my hand is stretched out still."

Edited by RipplecutBuddha
rephrase
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LDS_Guy_1986

The reason why Israel was not suppose to have a King was that Jesus Christ is there rightful King hence they had no need for a man to be there King.

There was a government though in Israel, the priesthood was the Government. No government is anarchy which is evil (and all things evil are of Satan), any government is better than no government.

The purpose of Government is to regulate the actions of men and set basic moral standards to ensure order and justice. This is a good purpose and remember that Moroni 8 says that all good things are inspired by God.

God inspires government, it is a tool that help control the base nature of man and is a good thing.

Israel had a government they they were the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and government by the priesthood he ordained!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why Israel was not suppose to have a King was that Jesus Christ is there rightful King hence they had no need for a man to be there King.

This is something you and I agree on. I've said it twice now.

There was a government though in Israel, the priesthood was the Government. No government is anarchy which is evil (and all things evil are of Satan), any government is better than no government.

Judges 2:16-19

16¶Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.

17And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other ods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord; but they did not so.

18And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

19And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.

The purpose of Government is to regulate the actions of men and set basic moral standards to ensure order and justice. This is a good purpose and remember that Moroni 8 says that all good things are inspired by God.

Again, I agree with you. However at this time in Judges there was no government structure....just the Judjes that God raised up. As soon as the judge was dead, anarchy indeed took over...It's not like the rules suddenly changed once the judge was in place. The whole of the events in Judges demonstrates this point I was trying to make.

God inspires government, it is a tool that help control the base nature of man and is a good thing.

Israel had a government they they were the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and government by the priesthood he ordained!

okay, maybe I just need to re-state my point. A point that you repeatedly keep making for me.

During the time of the Judges, there was no organized governmental structure as you are implying existed. the judge at the time was the government. (when you see the word judge, hear the word prophet because Samuel the Prophet was also said to Judge Israel all his days)

Yes there was priesthood in Israel besides the prohpet/judge, but they were established specifically for attending to the ordinances of the temple, not for running the nation of Israel.

The government at the time was God speaking to and directing the prophet/judge he chose. That's it. Nonetheless, Jehovah was their King and we know Jehovah was to be called Jesus during his mortal life, so in that you are also correct. This is also a point on which you and I agree.

Where we disagree, I think, is in that Jehovah wanted to be recognized as Israel's king all the way up to his birth in mortality, but Israel would not accept such an arrangement. Jehovah wanted to keep using Judges (prophets) to lead and guide his chosen people, instead of establishing extensive governments over the people that did not involve Him directly.

Why would I think this? Because it was the first arrangement Jehovah established once Joshua passed on. If having kings or other forms of man-centered governments was preferrable, why Didn't Jehovah establish a king of Israel right off the bat?

God has always blessed governments that are run and led in righteousness. God is a god of order, and governments provide that. We are expected to honor governments in which we live because of what those governments provide, but even now, Jesus would prefer that we follow him directly rather than look to the Government for how to live. "He that keepeth the law of God has no need to break the law of the land." If we would just listen to and obey all God commands, we would be the most patriotic people in every nation we are found. I actually think this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share