Book of Mormon Reading Group: 16 Oct - 22 Oct 2023 (Mosiah 14 - Mosiah 29)

[Vort]

Good catch. I forgot about that one.

[Jamie123]

That's quite a comprehensive answer thanks everyone for your efforts.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Whereas ancient Israel left the rule of judges because they demanded a king, the Nephites left the rule of judges when they were too wicked to sustain it and the whole society fell apart from internal intrigue and wicked "combinations".

I've not read the whole story of course, but I was guessing that monarchy would eventually return. I'm not an expert on Roman history, but perhaps there's a parallel there: Brutus overthrew the last king Tarquinus Superbus and established a Republic, which lasted a long time, but eventually in-fighting led to the rise of super-magistrates, who became emperors.

We see it again in England in the 17th Century: the short experiment with republicanism ended with Cromwell becoming Lord Protector (king in all but name) and in France where the First Republic led to the Terror and eventually the rise of Napoleon.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

That's quite a comprehensive answer thanks everyone for your efforts.

I've not read the whole story of course, but I was guessing that monarchy would eventually return. I'm not an expert on Roman history, but perhaps there's a parallel there: Brutus overthrew the last king Tarquinus Superbus and established a Republic, which lasted a long time, but eventually in-fighting led to the rise of super-magistrates, who became emperors.

We see it again in England in the 17th Century: the short experiment with republicanism ended with Cromwell becoming Lord Protector (king in all but name) and in France where the First Republic led to the Terror and eventually the rise of Napoleon.

IIRC, one of the architects of the collapse of the Nephite system of judges was a guy named Jacob who eventually came to control a city called Jacobugath and proclaimed himself king.  The BoM doesn’t go into much detail, as I recall; but one gets the sense that he was well on his way to building a new coalition until he and his followers were destroyed en mass in the natural catastrophes that accompanied Jesus’s crucifixion.  

[Jamie123]

I've just been thinking about what I wrote - in all 3 of those cases we have a monarchy forcibly removed. What is potentially unique about Mosiah is he is a monarch who orchestrated the termination of his own monarchy.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

I've just been thinking about what I wrote - in all 3 of those cases we have a monarchy forcibly removed. What is potentially unique about Mosiah is he is a monarch who orchestrated the termination of his own monarchy.

Um... Actually, Mosiah served as king for the remainder of his life (only a couple of years; he was old), and left the system of judges he had set up as the ruling body, with the Chief Judge over all the land acting as the chief executive. So yes, Mosiah was unselfish and set the people up with a free society of (in a sense, at least) self-rule. But he did not actually ever abdicate the throne, preferring to give the people an easing-in period to wean them from monarchy.

[Jamie123]

46 minutes ago, Vort said:

Um... Actually, Mosiah served as king for the remainder of his life (only a couple of years; he was old), and left the system of judges he had set up as the ruling body, with the Chief Judge over all the land acting as the chief executive. So yes, Mosiah was unselfish and set the people up with a free society of (in a sense, at least) self-rule. But he did not actually ever abdicate the throne, preferring to give the people an easing-in period to wean them from monarchy.

That was what I meant. Aaron "declining the kingship" seemed a little lame when I first read it. I was a little surprised he didn't say "never mind what you want, son, this is your duty!" but I suppose he'd perceived the monarchy had run its course and it was time to try something different.

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I was a little surprised he didn't say "never mind what you want, son, this is your duty!" but I suppose he'd perceived the monarchy had run its course and it was time to try something different.

I've always been struck by Mosiah's words to convince the people to replace the monarchy. In addition to arguing that e.g. his sons might try to reclaim power and lead the people to ruin, he adds that they have no right to destroy his son. Indeed, such addiction to power is destructive to the soul.

I am reminded when (a generation after this point) Ammon worked so hard to convince the former Lamanites who were called "the people of Ammon" not to break their oath to God to renounce war under all circumstances. As Elder Scott so insightfully explained fifteen or so years ago in General Conference, if those who had repented renounced their repentance and once again found their blood lust, they would not be redeemable. It was far, far better for them to die (which they would die anyway) than to travel down that path. But you note that their sons were under no such dire oath, and had never learned their fathers' blood lust. So they were perfectly free to go fight and kill and suffer grave injury (but not death!) to defend their homes and those of their fellow Nephites, and were miraculously preserved by showing such tremendous faith.

[Jamie123]

I think the ideals of righteous kingship are nowhere better expressed than by C.S. Lewis in the Narnia books. In The Magician's Nephew, when Aslan chooses Frank the cab driver to be the new king, Frank objects that he's not "posh" or "educated". Aslan says that a king should (I haven't the book to hand so I'm quoting from memory):

Quote

...not show unfair partiality to any of his subjects, nor tolerate anyone else doing so. And when times are hard, should laugh the most heartily over a scanty meal. And when enemies come, to be the first into battle and the last to retreat.

If Frank can do all those things, then he's as good a king as any. In The Horse and his Boy we meet King Lune. When he comes to meet Aravis, he's just come from his kennels, in his ordinary clothes (not his royal robes) and with his hands covered in dog-slobber, but he's not one bit embarrassed and greets her with a huge smile. Later Shasta (Aravis' companion) finds out he's King Lune's son and replaces Prince Corin as his heir. Shasta expects Corin to be angry but he's not: he's over the moon that he can carry on having fun, and need never worry about being king. King Lune agrees, that Shasta has actually drawn the short straw and...

Quote

...a king can no more step away from his throne, than a sentry can leave his post

Medieval kingship was never quite like this, though the Merovingian tradition came close. Here, a king has two duties: (i) to protect his subjects from their enemies (which in practice meant he was in charge of the army) and (ii) to look after their spiritual welfare. So a king was a kind of warrior-priest. He was not, on the other hand, supposed to meddle in the internal affairs of his kingdom (rather like our current king) - unless of course his ministers became corrupt, in which case they were precisely the sort of enemies he should be protecting his people from.

The English coronation oath (which goes back to Edward the Confessor) specifies three kingly duties: (i) to do justice, (ii) to protect the Church and (iii) to hang on to all the possessions of his predecessors. (Which included the recovering of lost territories.) This last one has probably caused more wars than anything else in British history: for centuries the English (and later British) monarchs considered themselves the rightful rulers of France, and spilled plenty of blood (English and French) trying to prove it. Check out the dedication in the King James Bible! (I think the LDS version still has this.) Though of course by James I's time the claim had become a meaningless formality. It was finally dropped by George III, by which time British were supporting the Bourbon pretender to the French throne, and it would have looked rather silly if their king was claiming it himself. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

I am reminded when (a generation after this point) Ammon worked so hard to...

SPOILER ALERT!!!

[zil2]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

And when enemies come, to be the first into battle and the last to retreat.

Were this rule followed by every head of government everywhere and for all time, there would not be nearly so many wars nor so many deaths in war.  I think we should reinstate it.  I think it a shame it's not part of the Chief Executive's duties mandated by the US Constitution.

[Jamie123]

56 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Were this rule followed by every head of government everywhere and for all time, there would not be nearly so many wars nor so many deaths in war.  I think we should reinstate it.  I think it a shame it's not part of the Chief Executive's duties mandated by the US Constitution.

Unlike The Gondoliers:

Quote

In enterprise of martial kind, when there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind, he found it less exciting.
But when away his regiment ran, his place was at the fore, O--
That celebrated, Cultivated, Underrated Nobleman, The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

In the first and foremost flight, ha, ha! You always found that knight, ha, ha!
That celebrated, Cultivated, Underrated Nobleman, The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

When, to evade Destruction's hand, To hide they all proceeded,
No soldier in that gallant band Hid half as well as he did.
He lay concealed throughout the war, And so preserved his gore, O!
That unaffected, Undetected, Well-connected Warrior, The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

In every doughty deed, ha, ha! He always took the lead, ha, ha!
That unaffected, Undetected, Well-connected Warrior, The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

When told that they would all be shot Unless they left the service,
That hero hesitated not, So marvelous his nerve is.
He sent his resignation in, The first of all his corps, O!
That very knowing, Overflowing, Easy-going Paladin, The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

To men of grosser clay, ha, ha! He always showed the way, ha, ha!
That very knowing, Overflowing, Easy-going Paladin, The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

20 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I don't remember any previous mention of these "seer stones" - do we know where they came from originally?

Also are they the same stones that Joseph Smith found in the buried box?

The common theory was that there were multiple sets of the stones.  And Joseph inherited the set that Moroni (son of Mormon) used during his stewardship of the plates. But looking at the narrative, it is entirely possible that they were the same set of stones.  But, again, we really have no idea if they were the same or a different set.

Where did they come from?  Let's look at Exodus 28

Quote

And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

 -- Ex 28: 30

If you ask a Jew, he can give you the translation of that verse from Hebrew:

• Urim = Lights
• Thummim = Perfections.

Ask him what that's supposed to mean, he'll say that they seem to be some stones that the High Priest had with the breastplate.  Apart from that, he has no idea.

Where did they come from?  Apparently, the Lord.

20 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Interesting that the Nephites (or at least the Nephites in Zarahemla) are transitioning from monarchy to rule by judges. This is the opposite of what the Israelites did.

Yes.  I believe that it was because of the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

The Old World had the Bible and all the stories of the Old and New Testaments.  The Israelites were ruled by monarchies.  And most of the Old World was ruled by monarchies.  While Greece and Rome had their go at it, they didn't have their governmental woes analyzed from a Judeo-Christian religious perspective.  The BoM provides that.

The BoM people were to be the type and shadow of the modern age.  In the New World we had monarchies in the beginning.  But we transitioned to a democratic form of government.

We see the downfall of the democratic form of government as the people reach a level of wickedness.  This is a warning to us in the modern age.  We can become wicked, then repent and restore order and democracy.  But there will be a point where we become so wicked and so careless about our freedoms and our peace by abandoning our religion entirely that we will no longer be a governable people.

Benjamin Franklin said of the US Constitution (and about the fate of democracy in general) that it would be properly ministered for a time.  And then it will eventually devolve into a tyrannical form because we will no longer be able to be governed by any other.

While the Old Testament tells us what happened under a monarchy, the BoM tells us about both the benefits and pitfalls of a free government.