Principles of Anarchy in the Book of Mormon & Other LDS Scripture
Principles of Anarchy in the Book of Mormon:
Introduction:
I am many things. I am enigma. I am a multi-instrumentalist, a composer, an arranger, an occasional performer, a musical producer, and a self-taught & still learning audio engineer. Most days I feel like a mediocrity and depression, anxiety, and panic attacks are my oldest “friends” who keep bed ridden or from progressing. I’m a Tourette’s Syndrome sufferer who has, it seems every co-morbidity of Tourette’s under the sun. I’m a Master’s level ESL teacher. I’m a Master’s level historian lacking the degree though I completed all the program requirements (a bitter story for another time). I’m an uncertified paralegal who once planned to go to law school and study Constitutional Law…I took the LSAT even, but having interned and experienced the duplicity of lawyers, I quickly changed my mind. I’m a XY male who is at times a trans-feminine, girly man who can be very build in my gender expression; I like way too many so-called “feminine” things that many would deem socially/culturally inappropriate or weird for a man. I’m very fluid in my gender expression, depending on my mood. I dress how I like, act how I like, call myself what I like, do what I like, so long as I’m not harming others in their equal rights, and I don’t care if you like it or not. One day I walk around in knit wear shorts, t-shirt, and sandals, the next I spend the day in an 1860s ballgown as a beautiful 19th century lady, a soft knit rayon maxi dress and sandals, or some other expression of my female side. I am my own person, a unique individual who insists on the sole authority to govern my own life and respects the same authority belonging to every other individual. I do not believe in rulers or people controlling others through violent force or threats thereof. I am, in short, an anarchist.
I wasn’t always an anarchist, or rather, I didn’t always call myself such. For a long time I went a long way to eschew the term and distance myself from it. But this is because I did not understand it; I bought into the lies the power class, authoritarians, statists, and government cult leaders said about it being violent, chaotic gang/mob rule where war lords took over everything like Tatooine under the Hutts. I bought into their lie that we need government to stave off a violent, slave filled, murderous and chaotic dystopian world. But after taking time to listen to anarchists explain the term and what it meant and hearing their arguments and seeing the reality that that dystopian world of “anarchy” was actually in existence right now under the authoritarian power class’s “government,” I was converted to anarchy, like a convert to Christ. I also realized that deep down, I been an anarchist all along though I just didn’t know it and couldn’t admit it for such a long time because my mind was duped by those statist lies.. More will be said on this later; for now, suffice it to say I am now a self-admitted and proud anarchist.
Of what variety? All of them, none of them, some of them. It’s impossible to pick a “label” that matches 100% but suffice it to say I lean heavily in the direction of the Individualist Anarchist direction of the Spoonerites, though I valued the term Voluntaryist as well. But be not confused; do not think that I am of the Auberon Herbert variety of Voluntarism, per se. While there is much good that I espouse in his ideas of a political, governmental system that would be far, far better than the cesspool of criminality & tyranny we suffer under today, by voluntarism, I do not necessarily mean to be an advocate of the Herbertian voluntary centralized state. One centralized agency will have the defect of developing only one method of dealing with criminals that might not work for everyone and their circumstances, whereas multiple voluntary agencies in each locale would be able to find methods of dealing with said true criminals in ways that better match their circumstances. The difference may appear minute, but large enough for an anarchist for it to mean something. For me as an anarchist, I am not a fan of centralization, even if the centralized institution is voluntarily erected, funded, & adhered to. It’s one thing to have one set of anarchist principles to live under as a world wide human society, but it’s quite another thing to have one centralized agency dealing with justice and such. Better to have multiple such agencies or institutions just within one’s locale from which to choose from than one in some far away place. But such is beyond the scope of this piece. Suffice it to say that I take the notion of voluntary interaction between human beings using the voluntary principles of Auberon Herbert and welcome them into my heart and build my world around them and thus see a peaceful, harmonious, productive society develop beginning with the individual within each family and on up. So, for me, voluntarism means I prefer and believe all interactions and relationships between human beings, of any nature, must be, morally speaking, voluntarily based, meaning voluntarily initiated, maintained, and dissolved, i.e. no coercive aggression involved. But though a voluntarist, individualist anarchist, I am very much in favor of mutual aid and cooperation, charity and love of fellow man, using what great or little we have to help those in need that we encounter in our sphere of life, according to our best abilities, so long as such efforts of aid and cooperation are voluntary based.
Another thing that I am that adds to my mystique and perhaps seeming contradiction, my status as enigma, is that I am a follower of Jesus Christ. And I don’t just mean a follower of his teachings on interpersonal relations between human beings. Those I most assuredly follow, for they are synonymous with anarchy and voluntarism. But, in addition, I also believe Christ is divine and is a God, the Son of God as he says. I believe he is a deity. And I’m not just any Christian Anarchist, I’m a Mormon Anarchist, an Anarchic Latter Day Saint. I was raised in the Mormon, AKA Latter Day Saint (LDS) religion, church, and culture, and spent the majority of my childhood and young adult life in it as, if not a firm believer, in the very least an unthinking sheep. I no longer attend their meetings or have anything to do with the social and “organized church” part of it, having put up a b boundary for my own personal reasons, but suffice it to say that though I no longer attend their meetings and no longer have any formal or informal relationship with the LDS Church, I am still very much influenced by the teachings I learned about God, Christ, our world, humanity, our purpose here, where we came from, where we are going, etc. I may not attend or interact with them, hell, I may not even follow, keep up with, or care much about what is going on with their church. To me, it was always about using the good I found in their teachings in my own life concerning my daily interactions with my fellow human beings and the rest of the world around me. And I found much of that good, those principles of anarchy in their scriptures, namely the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine & Covenants. Yes, I found Anarchy is those religious texts, which is what I believe shaped me to become the anarchist I am today.
And this is what I wish to write about in this piece. I wish to write about the principles of anarchy that can be found in Mormon scripture such as the Book of Mormon. This is not to say that the LDS Church is a bastion of anarchy and anarchism, or that the Book of Mormon is an anarchist text. Far from it. There are things the LDS church does, says, and believes that I cannot agree with, cannot stand, and are definitely the furthest thing from anarchy. There are incidents in the Book of Mormon that are the furtherest thing from anarchy. What I aim to show, though, is that there IS anarchy in the Book for Mormon, lots of it, as well as in the more general teachings relating to Mormon ideas behind the nature of God, humanity, our story and purpose. Principles of anarchy can be gleaned from the Book of Mormon’s pages as a lesson to be taken from the incidents described within the books and applied to our very lives, for that is what the purpose of scripture is, to glean the principles of living from the experiences of past peoples and apply them to our current and future lives. Such lessons, though they may not be called anarchic outright in the text, anarchic they still be, and they abound and can be learned from the Book of Mormon stories. And once their connections to anarchic principles are made, these lessons can be used to explain how and why anarchism is the inevitable and desired goal of human existence on earth in this life and the next. The average Mormon/Latter Day Saint, even the upper echelons of the Salt Lake City based First Presidency might very well scoff at the idea that anarchy and the virtues of it can be gleaned from their most holy of books, but that is because they, like me for so many years, didn’t and still don’t understand anarchy and what it truly means; they have continued to buy into the lie of power mongers and people who wish to do evil to others everywhere that anarchy means utter chaos & violence, under the rule of ever changing war lords, with no rules whatsoever, every man doing as he please with no such notions as good or evil and most definitely no sense of responsibility, duty, or obligation, where murder and torture and all manner of human destruction is OK. The power mongers of course wish to spread these lies about anarchy far and wide so they can get people to put their trust in them and vote for them to save them from such a horrid fate by giving them power to stop by violence & coercion such from becoming reality, thus in reality becoming the very war lords they claim to be protecting against. The power monger need anarchy to have a bad image so they can have a job. But the reality of Anarchy couldn’t be further from what the power mongers claim it to be and those who don’t know any better end up believing from the power mongers. There are plenty of examples of non-anarchy, dare I say “statism” of various forms, some better some worse, occurring in the Book For Mormon. But there are also plenty of examples of anarchy occurring, as well as plenty of examples of incidents involving gov. And society that show the inevitable straight of government, even the most benignly, carefully designed kinds grow and lead to the word tyrannies, thus vindicating anarchy as the preferable form of social, cultural, and economic system in which inter human relationships and interactions occur.
In short, I aim to show that anarchy in the Book of Mormon is not such a crazy idea after all, and that being a Latter Day Saint anarchist isn’t as weird or contradictory as it may seem.
I may not have read every single anarchy theoretician and their works; I may not know every term or label. I make no claim to be an anarchy scholar; I know the basic names of anarchist literature, some of which I’ve read, some I haven’t. There’s way more talented writers, philosophers, theoreticians, and anarchy historians, so-called “gospel of anarchy spreaders” than I out there. I’m just an everyday, insignificant believer and practitioner. There’s a lot of things I don’t know and am still learning and figuring out when it comes to anarchy and its history on our earth, but there’s also a lot that I do know. What I don’t know, I find out to the best of my abilityAnd what I do know is to help those in need in the ways I am able, not to do violence upon them except in self defense, let people live their lives as they see fit so long as they harm no one else in the process, and everyone has the right to be 100% sovereign over their life, their choices, and their justly acquired property. In short, I know the principles upon which anarchy is built upon, and I know to extend them to their fullest logical conclusions. The trick is to apply them fully and equally in all of one’s life situations and circumstances. Some people are better at this than others. But the good thing about anarchy is that, once one is familiar with its principles, whether one has read all the lit and theory or not is kind of moot. It doesn’t hurt to be a walking encyclopedia in all things anarchy and its history & literature, but it’s not necessarily required, either. Funnily enough, I came by my knowledge of anarchist principles through other means and not so much by reading anarchist lit & theory. Much of my training in anarchist principles came thru my study of LDS scripture and doctrine, as odd as that may sound. This is why, as I’ve had the chance to read some of the anarchist lit from it past and present philosophers and writers, I have been able to find harmony between my LDS upbringing and the ideas of these anarchist writers. The two, LDS teachings on interpersonal relationships in our daily living and anarchic principles of the same, are incredibly agreeable and being familiar with one makes it easy to understand & see the same rock both are built upon. Despite my mediocrity and imperfect knowledge and familiarity of all things in the world of anarchy, I hope to be able to demonstrate here this connection between anarchism and so-called “Mormonism,” at least as far as the Book of Mormon storyline and the daily living principles to be learned therein is concerned.
When I say anarchist principles, to some anarchist they may say “there’s only one anarchist principle: no rulers,” and that everything else is simply derivative of this. This may be true, and perhaps it might be apt to call them “libertarian principles” instead. Many anarchists view anarchy as the application of “libertarianism” and its principles of liberty to their fullest extent in all aspects of life, that anarchy is the natural endpoint of libertarianism, perhaps not unlike many Marxists view “communism” as the fullest application of “socialism.” However one wants to define the terms, whether it be “libertarian principles” or “anarchist principles,” it really is neither here nor there to me in the long run, for I personally view “libertarianism” and “anarchism” as one and the same. Call them the principles of liberty if you will, but for clarity’s sake, since this piece is an attempt to rescue “anarchy” from its tainted and tarnished definitions at the hands of the authoritarians/statists, I shall use the term “anarchist principles” primarily. And frankly, though this piece is for anyone and everyone, it is primarily an attempt to, as stated, rescue “anarchy” from it’s tarnished and vilified definitions at the hands of statists for the sake of the Mormons by connecting these principles with the Book of Mormon and showing how the doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon and one and the same with the principles of anarchy. It’s to show Mormons that what they think they know about anarchy is entirely mistaken and misguided, having been fooled and tricked by the satanic/devilish authoritarian slavers into seeing it as something satanic and thus evil and undesirable. It’s to convert mainstream, everyday Mormons to the cause of anarchy by showing them it is in actuality in harmony with the teachings found in their scriptural doctrines. But, it is also an attempt to show already converted anarchists, especially the agnostic or even the atheists that the principles found in the Book of Mormon are anarchist in nature, that anarchy is in full bloom within the Book of Mormon and thus to convince them that A.) what they think they know of Mormonism is mistaken and misguided and that they should not dismiss the book simply because it is a “religious text.” In short, there is much anarchists can learn from the Book of Mormon and its teachings of “God” despite it being a religious text.
Many anarchists will say “no gods, no masters,” and as such dismiss or fervently loath religion and religious texts as they interpret them from the sad experience of tyranny many of those religions have unleashed upon the world. They will see “God” through the lens off those evil human actors who passed off the works of Satan as the works and deserts of God and thus tend to see God as some distant tyrant they want nothing to do with. But what if, perchance, God is real, is a real human entity who has become perfected over eons of living by the principles of anarchy/liberty, and thus is not only far from being a tyrant, but is a loving parent who is an anarchist and simply wants the best for us and thus encourages us to choose the route of anarchy as well and follow him voluntarily because we see the goodness of his teachings and ways? What if everything the Mormons and the anarchists thought they knew of God was mistaken and misguided? I hope to be able to show both groups that perhaps there is more to God than what they currently think they know about him by showing the principles of anarchy in the Book of Mormon and thus showing Mormons and anarchists alike that there is much they need to learn to rethink about themselves and about each other and learn not to see each other as enemies or poor misguided saps who have simply bought into a cult and refuse to see reality. Either way, the purpose is not to convert atheist anarchists to become Mormons, or atheists theists, but rather, to show them that there is much in the way of anarchy in Mormonism by way of its scriptures and scriptural teachings about how to live one’s daily life by showing examples of those in ancient times who lived their daily lives by the principles of anarchy and prospered or lived their lives by the ways of satanic authoritarianism and perished from the inherent violence such living requires and results in. For that is what scriptures are, stories of past inhabitants of this world who chose good (the ways of God, ie.e anarchism) and the favorable results of doing so, and those who chose evil (the ways of Satan, authoritarianism, tyranny, statism, and aggressive violence) and their undesirable results ending in suffering and violent death. They are stories of past people’s lives meant for us to learn certain principles from and apply those principles to our own lives. And it just so happens that those principles taught in the Book of Mormon for people to apply to their own lives today are quite anarchistic.
This endeavor to highlight the anarchist principles found within the Book of Mormon will perhaps prove to be most useful in persuading Mormons themselves of the goodness of anarchy, that it is not something to be feared or disdained, but rather, lauded and upheld as in harmony with the principles of the teaching of Christ and the doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon. This endeavor is for non-Mormons, too, who are unfamiliar with the connections between anarchism and the Book of Mormon Christian principles, but the the primary target in convincing and persuading readers to see what I see in the connections between anarchism and the Book of Mormon and the Christianity based off on it are the Mormons themselves. For Mormons have long bought into the propaganda about anarchy statists and authoritarians have hammered into their heads since government run grade school, which they think is backed by scripture itself, namely in D&C 134. So before I delve into the Book of Mormon itself, I must first address D&C 134. For the non-Mormon/LDS reader, the D&C is short for the book of scripture called Doctrine and Covenants, which Mormons believe are a collection of modern day revelations given to the prophet Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets by God to clarify for his modern day flock of believers the principles of old for them to understand and apply in the modern times and world. They are also collections of new revelations of new previously unknown truth for the purpose of guiding modern believers in the world they live in. The D&C was mostly written between the 1820s-30s and 1844 when Joseph Smith was murdered by the state government of Missouri. D&C 134 outlines the beliefs held by Jospeh Smith and his then fledgling church on the roles of government. I hope to show modern day Mormons how they are wrong in thinking D&C 134 condemns anarchy and condones authoritarian government. I hope to show that, at best D&C 134 actually supports anarchy and the anarchy principles found in the Book of Mormon, or in the very least, is illogical in its arguments & principles and must either be read a different way in order for it to make sense or scrapped altogether. The last option is not one that need be done. Instead, seeing D&C 134 from a different light, through the principles of anarchy found in the Book of Mormon itself, understanding its vocabulary & the realities of government differently can render it in support of anarchy.
Today, there are more than 16,663,663 members of the LDS church, AKA Mormons, worldwide who all sincerely believe and daily works of scripture that are chalk full of the principles of anarchy. If these Mormons can be converted by evidenced reason & logic to learn to read D&C 134 from an anarchist perspective and see the anarchy dripping from the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture, then anarchists will have gained a large numbered formidable allie in the cause of spreading the good news of anarchy and the peace and prosperity anarchy allows to develop, dare I say the “Zion Society” so many Mormons long for and look to under Christ. But Christ won’t come and guide us in this anarchist Zion Society unless we are significantly ready to accept it and live by it, let alone even know HOW to live by it’s principles. Christ isn’t waiting for things to get so bad he has to come and clean it up; Christ is waiting to come until we clean ourselves up, cast off the chains of evil statism and aggressive, coercive government, and adopt a voluntarist way of life in interacting with people and working together with them. But with over 16 million converted anarchists who daily read the principles of anarchy found in their scriptures, who have been converted to understand statism and coercive, aggressive government is evil and anarchy is good (and not the other way around), anarchy will significant headway and deal a major blow to the authoritarian statists in the world that perhaps they’ll never fully recover from. Over 16 million more anarchists in the world would be a very good thing for anarchy. So while this writing is for everyone, it is also aimed primarily at converting Mormons to see the light of the “gospel of anarchy” and how it is synonymous & harmonious with the gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ” himself. Convert the Mormons/LDS members into anarchists & you have a sizable chunk of a very evangelical part of the world population ready to help make the world that much more free not only by living free but by doing whatever they can to help bring the world to the virtues of anarchy. I hold no delusions of grandeur. I realize the tentacles of aggressive, coercive, authoritarian government reach far, wide and deep into the LDS community, as much so as it does elsewhere. I realize my message will likely fall mostly on deaf ears. But with a little luck, perhaps a few LDS readers might see the reason and logic in what I say concerning anarchy and its presence in the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture and doctrine and spread those ideas to those in their own lives, until the message spreads far and wide over time. And with a little luck, perhaps some non-LDS, agnostic, and/or atheist anarchists will receive my message on anarchy and the Book of Mormon approvingly. Either way, I do what I do and write what I write because I can and because I feel it important to do so, even if no one else feels the same way, even if many mock and ridicule me from either side. So be it.
So, for the benefit of the modern practicing Latter Day Saint, AKA Mormon who claims to be a devout follower of and believer in the scriptures as well as a “good, law abiding, obedient civilian,” I shall endeavor to remove the roadblock to anarchy that is D&C 134 and try to explain how D&C 134 doesn’t actually say what it is typically interpreted as saying and that it actually is closer in principle to anarchy than to obedient, servile statism. This can be seen if one looks at it from a slightly different perspective by altering how one interprets it’s vocabulary. Most Mormons, indeed, most human beings alive today have been indoctrinated by the status quo regime of aggressive, violent, coercive government to see the world under its control through euphemisms that have been carefully crafted to paint the statist world in a certain, favorable, “common sense” light, even though it is anything but favorable or common sense. To see the statist, coercive government dominated world for how it really is, i.e. warlordism and slavery, one must learn to see through those euphemisms and relearn the definitions of certain words one has been using wrongfully for most of his/her life. Words like “government,” “anarchy,” “crime,” “magistrate,” “president,” “elections,” “sovereignty,” “law,” “rebellion”/“sedition,” “order,” “chaos,” “violence,” etc, one must see these as, often, the opposite of what they are commonly defined as. To see the anarchic principles inherent in D&C 134 and the Book of Mormon, one must relearn what these words mean for what they are in actuality and practice. One must learn to see that the so-called “good guys” that we have all been indoctrinated for years and decades by schooling and TV/movies to see and sincerely believe to truly be the “good guys” are in actuality the true, real criminals and monsters. One must be able to learn to see that for most of our entire lives, we have been brainwashed to believe good is evil and evil is good, indoctrinated in such a manner by these very criminals and monsters so that they may maintain their positions of wealth and power over others (i.e. magistrates, presidents, sovereigns, judges, politicians/legislators, bureaucrats, police, and all manner of government officials) so they may continue in their crimes and get fat off the masses of the world population. As will be shown, either D&C 134 must be seen from this new light, or it must be scrapped altogether as illogical and entirely incompatible with the rest of the teachings of the LDS scriptures regarding the agency and freedom of the individual that in actuality support anarchy. Once the hurtle of D&C 134 is cleared and it is seen from this new perspective, Mormons/Latter Day Saints will see that what they already believe from the LDS scriptures is remarkably anarchist and most of what they learn about anarchism, from me or from any other anarchist will hit home and be extremely familiar. And this will honestly be the same for non-Mormon/LDS, agnostic or atheist anarchists. There is so much anarchy or anarchy principles is Mormon theology and doctrine already, including scripture, that once what anarchy actually is has been made clear to them, they will find themselves in so many situations nodding their heads in agreement and recognizing principle after principles. In short, like most human beings, Mormons/members of the LDS church are just as close and ready, if not more so than the typical person to receive anarchy and its way of voluntary, peaceful living given the commonalities and sameness between principles of living taught in the Book of Mormon and other scripture and anarchy/voluntaryism. Mormons are probably 80-90% already converted to anarchy and voluntarism, they just don’t know it because they don’t know what anarchy and voluntarism is or they’ve been taught erroneous ideas about by those who wish to preserve power over them so as to control them and live off their hard work. Indeed, not only is it LDS scripture that contains so much of anarchism and voluntarism as it is, but so much in their church structure, ranging from the “Church Welfare” system to notion that there is no clergy and that the LDS church is run by voluntary actions by voluntary members who are “called” to those positions, all of that is anarchy/voluntaryism. And if a worldwide church ran solely on voluntary action by its lay members can grow as large as it has and continue to grow, and build so much and give so much to people in need, all through voluntary contribution and action by its members, then society, ranging from local to the world can accomplish the same growth and community creation upon voluntary action, that “government” or societal organization/interaction can run off the same voluntary principles.
To help the Mormons/LDS see this anarchy and voluntaryism they already know and believe and that it can and should be applied beyond their church life, there is only one major hurtle they need help overcoming: they must learn how to unthink what they have been indoctrinated to think about the nature and need of “government” by the violent, aggressive government authoritarians who have controlled their education and media for the entirety of their lives. Slave owners will do anything to justify and preserve their unequal status above the slaves, including preventing education, controlling what is learned, or outright threatening violence against any who they deem a danger to their system. We saw it in the past with White European and African chattel slavery, especially with the latter. And we still see it today with modern day slavery, for despite what is commonly believed, slavery didn’t end with the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Slavery continued and continues on to this day, only in a slightly different form so as to make it seem like the slaves are free and get to participate in their own governance. The reality is quite the opposite, sadly, whether one points to the regulatory and permit/license driven state or to the income tax and other types of legalized theft called “taxation” or the myriad other examples of the government controlling your life and your property in almost every aspect to demonstrate it. Slave owners don’t want slaves to know they are slaves, so they will go to any lengths to keep that knowledge from them and get them to not even think of that being a possibility. For the casual Mormon who contests this fact that we are all slaves to those in power in government, I merely point to the Book of Mormon example of King Limhi and his group of Nephites who were descended from those who left Zarahemla (Zeniff & company) to return to the land of their inheritance among the wicked Laminates who sought to enslave them and keep them there as slaves by requiring them to give up a percentage of their annual crop yield and set guards around their communities to ensure they obeyed and to keep them from escaping. How is out society with its myriad of enforcers of laws that steal from us in one way or another and control our flow in and out of the country any different? They aren’t. If Limhi and his people were slaves, “in bondage” to the Lamanites, then we today, even in America, most certainly are, too. Slavery comes in a variety of forms, but at its essence there is the root aspect behind it: someone else controls your life and takes what you have earned by force or threats of violence for themselves or to give to others. That you may get to “vote” for your slave masters/thieves who then decided how much they will steal and where, when, and in what manner does not make you any less a slave.
Before we can do so, we must first briefly highlight what these principles of anarchism/voluntarism found in the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture so one knows them when read.
Impatient Readers thus far, Mormon or no, may ask: “what are these principles of anarchy found in the Book of Mormon? You keep mentioning them but haven’t explained what they are yet!” To which I respond, patience, for they shall be explained, but for the impatient reader, in short, they can be found in D&C 121: 39-45:
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy abowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distill upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
They are also found in D&C 58: 27-29:
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
29 But he that doth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.
These verses are a good summary synopsis of the principles of anarchy. In short, for the impatient reader, the principles of anarchy as found in the Book of Mormon, which shall be explained in detail shortly, are “active voluntaryism,” where in one does not use force and violent aggression against his/her fellow human beings but recognizes their sovereignty and uses patient persuasion and evidenced reason and actively chooses to be an agent of freedom and good by actively choosing to do good to others, including not violating their rights through the use of aggressive violence towards them. Again, once we have finished with D&C 134, these principles of anarchy as found in the Book of Mormon will be explicated in greater detail as we go through the Book of Mormon part by part, story by story.
Now that we have the framework of the principles of anarchy, let’s examine that major hurtle to Mormons in accepting anarchy, D&C 134, and learn to see if from a different light that shines on the anarchy and voluntarism already built into it as well as the rest of Mormonism and its doctrine and scripture.
Anarchy & D&C 134
D&C 134 says the following:
1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.
7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.
9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
There is a lot to unpack here, but let us start with the most important verses, #’s 2 & 5, which state that “no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life,” and that “all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.” WHILE protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.” Pray tell, what government is that? What government in the history of human governments has ever protected the inherent and inalienable rights of the individuals, including the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life, by the laws of said government? Surely not government in the US; not now, not 100 years ago, not even at the founding of the country and the framing of the current US Constitution. There has never been a government in the history of mankind and human governments that has protected these rights, and thus there has never been a government in the history of mankind and human government that has thus existed in peace. This is because of the very nature of government, what it is in actuality and in practice: coercive, aggressive violence and threats thereof to aggressively violate the natural rights of humanity in order to justify and secure its very existence. Indeed, the very nature of “government,” if one is to consult the expertise of anarchist philosopher Larken Rose, is where one group of people claim the right and authority to rule over other human beings and make laws, or dictates for those they rule over, often for the financial benefit of the former, which dictates are enforced by actual violence or threats thereof.
Indeed, Larken Rose goes so far as to say that “government” doesn’t exist and is a literal figment of the imagination of would be tyrants who create myths and doctrines to justify their attempts to violently rule over everyone else. As he explains, if the authority to rule over others does not in reality exist as we are all individual human beings and thus our own individual rulers and sovereigns over ourselves, then government in reality does not exist. And anything calling itself a government, which cannot exist, is in reality just a gang of bullies and criminals/warlords claiming the right and authority to rule over everyone else and enforcing that claim, that “authority” to rule by threats of violence on those who do not obey their dictates. Thus, the inherent and inalienable rights of the individual human being cannot exist under a system of criminals who use mercenaries and task masters, i.e. police and militaries, even the very citizenry itself to make threats of violence against those who disobey, i.e. under a “government.”
Thus, going back to verses 2 & 5 of D&C 134, governments cannot in law protect the inherent, inalienable rights of the individuals who make up the people as they must by necessity violate those rights on a daily basis in order to exist and thus they cannot exist in peace because the nature of government, for all government is aggressive, coercive violence against innocents in order to compel them to obey whatever edicts the ruling class makes. So, in reality, there never has been, there is not, and there never can be a “government” under which the laws protect the inherent and inalienable rights of all human beings because “government” by nature is a group of criminals claiming the authority too rule over everyone else, which by nature of such a claim inherently strips the inherent and inalienable right of each individual to rule over themselves. If one is to be protected in one’s free exercise of conscience, right & control of property, and protection life, among one’s other natural rights, one cannot be forced by aggressive, coercive violence to obey edicts from a ruling class, for such edicts, or laws as they are called, strip from the individual these very rights. One only need look at taxation to see this reality; taxation is the basis for the financial existence of all coercive human governments and by nature takes from individuals the right & control of property, as well as protection of life, for we need our property to acquire the means of protecting our lives. These forcefully stolen revenues, stolen by government officials at the threat of violence toward those who don’t pay, forcefully taken by armed thugs making good on those threats - these revenues are then used by governments to continue to enforce said taxation laws, i.e. future theft, thus forcing individuals to continuously fund the enforcement of not only the robbery of themselves, but the robbery of their neighbors, thus violating the consciences of all those who express dissent and opposition to such a racket as government and taxation. And no such violent, coercive government can exist without coercive taxation.
But let’s look at another example, say something as mundane as occupational licensure or zoning laws. Such laws infringe upon the right and control of property, as well as protection of life by dictating how one can and can’t use one’s property and how and where one can and can’t make a living using one’s property, thus bottlenecking how one protects one’s life by controlling and narrowing how one can provide for his/her life. And again, such laws violate the rights of conscience by prohibiting one from the sincere belief that one has the right to make a living from one’s own property by having a business on one’s own property where one lives/dwells, forcing people to obey such arbitrary laws against one’s conscience. Or say one wanted to have church meetings out of one’s home; zoning laws prohibiting such would not only violate the right to control one’s property. But would prohibit one from exercising his/her conscience on said private property.
The reality is that violent coercive governments by their nature violate the natural rights of individuals by their very existence in order to exist & secure their future existence and they only fuel themselves so that they may grow and prosper. Therefor, they cannot exist in peace because violence cannot and does not equate to peace. These 2 verses alone in D&C 134, verse 2 & 5, render D&C 134 illogical and impossible…IF one does not learn to interpret the word “government” in a different light. And if verses 2 & 5 are utterly illogical and impossible, then so is verse 1, for if governments are instituted for the benefit and safety of mankind, by making laws that protect the rights of the individual, and thus maintaining peace, since no violent, coercive government can accomplish the latter 2 goals (protection of individual natural rights and thus peace), no government can be for the benefit and safety of mankind since ALL human governments are built upon the foundation of violent, aggressive, coercion. The only “government” that could achieve any of of those goals, the benefit and safety of mankind by protecting the natural rights of individuals and thus maintaining peace would a purely voluntarist one where no aggressive violence and coercion was exercised in order to enforce its rules and each individual was 100% completely sovereign over one’s life, i.e. anarchy. To some anarchists, like Larken Rose, such an institution would cease to be “government” and thus cannot be called such if purely voluntary. More will be said on this momentarily.
Then there’s the notion that violent, coercive governments were instituted for humanity by God, humanity’s creator, our literal loving, merciful parent, the very being who gave us our agency to chose good or evil of our own accord, coercing no person to heaven. According to LDS theology, there was a war in Heaven, i.e. the premortal life, where Satan sought the glory and power of God and his Son, Christ, by seeking to strip his fellow siblings, us, humanity, of our agency and forcing us to be and do good in this life, thus forcing us back to Heaven after our time on this earth was done. Satan, after seeking to become such a tyrant, was thrust from Heaven out of the presence of God, wherein he took up his abode on this earth to temp and ensnare mankind and drag them to hell with him by getting them to choose evil instead of good. Whatever one believes of this story of the creation of Satan and heaven, hell, and heavenly wars, the moral of the story is that Stan became evil by seeking to be a power hungry, authoritarian tyrant who sought to use force and violence against others, which is exactly what human government is. The moral is that God, or good, favors agency and choice and thus makes no threats of violence against the disobedient, forcing no one back to heaven. And if God coerces no human being to chose Him and His ways of righteousness, patience, peace, persuasion, and freedom, then why would he institute inherently violent and coercive institutions called government in which one group of people claim authority to make rules for the rest of humanity under them and bind them under their arbitrary rule by violence? No such a creation can logically come from anything other than Satan and the satanic violent human beings looking to justify and ensure their lucrative positions of power and wealth as rulers over other human beings, making rules for everyone else and then exempting themselves from said rules. No violent, coercive government that uses violence and aggression to enforce its rules and fuel and ensure its continued existence could come from a non-aggressively violent, non-aggressively coercive Deity that refuses to force his own creations to choose Him and His ways of peace and persuasion. It is nonsensical.
Satan is the master of the earthly kingdoms, the (violent, aggressively coercive) governments of the world, government in general. He creates them, controls them for his own purposes to spite God and ensnare & enslave as many of God’s children as possible in sin & evil through them, almost in a Pinnochio Pleasure Island fashion in which he promises all the “fun” power and treasures of the world in exchange for doing his bidding, i.e. murder, theft, torture, kidnap, war, and all manner of harm towards others. We can know the governments for the world are his from other scriptural accounts, including the following: Matthew 4: 8, 1 Nephi 13-14, Gaddianton Robbers chapters in 3rd Nephi
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Satan comes to tempt Jesus while he’s weak in body from fasting, and at one point shows him his kingdoms of the world with all their glory and riches and offers them to him to control if he but worship and obey Satan and give him the power of the Christ and God. If they weren’t Satan’s to begin with, they wouldn’t have been his to give. And if they weren’t Jesus’s/God’s, then they must have been Satan’s. For Satan believes himself to be the master of this world and all its governments of power and wealth, which are his attempts to mimic the creative power of God, who created mankind and all the worlds that exist for mankind to inherit for themselves. God creates worlds and people, and sets them to govern themselves using his teachings. Satan attempts to mockingly mimic His power by creating earthly kingdoms that use the strength of men to violently conquer and murder each other in order to obtain control and power over the riches of the earth. In Moses 4 in the Pearl of Great Price, it is told how Lucifer, second son of God became Satan, by seeking to overthrow God’s power for himself and stripping away the agency of mankind, Satan and Christ’s fellow siblings, forcing mankind through violent, aggressive coercion to return to the presence of God after their sojourn here on earth, coercing them into salvation by taking freedom of choice from them and making them his slaves:
Moses 4:
1 And I, the aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the cbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved aSon, which was my Beloved and bChosen from the beginning, said unto me—cFather, thy dwill be done, and the eglory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that aSatan brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be dcast down;
4 And he became aSatan, yea, even the bdevil, the father of all clies, to ddeceive and to blind men, and to lead them ecaptive at his will, even as many as would not fhearken unto my voice.
For this rebellion and attempted mutiny to obtain God’s power to coercively rule over his fellow siblings, us, mankind, and make us his slaves, Satan was cast out of heaven and cast down to this earth, where he would be the tempter of mankind so as to give mankind a true choice between good and evil. And in that roll as the tempter, Satan has been given free reign to do his best to tempt mankind but not coerce them into choosing who they shall follow, him, or Christ/God, including creating earthly governments filled with violent, aggressively coercive power and wealth to tempt human beings with and ensnare and enslave them to Satan and his ways (lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, torturing, destroying, etc.) in exchange for control over those earthly governments and the ability to rule over their fellow human beings in evil tyranny. All this, his earthly governments and their power and riches Satan tempted Jesus Christ with, saying he’d be given control over it all if only Jesus traded in his power from his father, God, and put Satan in charge as the God of this world and worship him. Jesus, who created worlds and people and creatures without number in concourse with God of course wisely said no, seeing Satan’s earthly kingdoms and riches for what they were, paltry attempts to mimic the true power Christ had as the Son of God.
But the point is, these earthly kingdoms and their riches, the governments and their empires of the world, soaked in the blood of their fellow human beings in their attempts gain control over those riches and their fellow human beings, to rule over them as dictators, these belong to and are the creation of Satan. Government as we know it, a group of human beings who claim all authority and control over the world, its wealth, and its inhabitants, to control according to their will using violent, aggressive coercive - this government comes from Satan, for they mimic Satan’s attempts to seek God’s power in the pre-earth life, the so-called “war in heaven” in order to enslave mankind to his will and deny us our freedom as individual human being and children of God. So the notion that such governments were instituted of God for the benefit of mankind and that mankind owes its obedience to them is a ludicrous, false notion that reeks of Satan and his lies.
We also see that Satan is in control of all the earthly governments/kingdoms/nations in 1st Nephi 13-14.
1 Nephi 13:
1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.
2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many anations and kingdoms.
3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.
4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the aGentiles the formation of a bgreat church.
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a achurch which is most abominable above all other churches, which bslayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a cyoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this agreat and babominable church; and I saw the cdevil that he was the founder of it.
7 And I also saw agold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined blinen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the adesires of this great and abominable church.
9 And also for the apraise of the world do they bdestroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.
1st Nephi 14:
9 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the adevil.
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save atwo churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother is the church of the cdevil; wherefore, dwhoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ewhore of all the earth.
11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many awaters; and she had dominion over ball the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.
12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were afew, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to afight against the Lamb of God.
14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were aarmed with brighteousness and with the cpower of God in great glory.
15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was apoured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the bnations and kindreds of the earth.
16 And as there began to be awars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—
17 And when the aday cometh that the bwrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the cwork of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his dcovenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.
“The church of the devil,” “the whore of all the earth,” “the great and abominable church,” “the mother of harlots,” “Babylon the Great and Mighty,” etc., these are all names for the governments/nations/kingdoms of the earth at which Satan, the devil is at the helm, using violent, aggressive, coercive and slavish government to gain control of the world and its riches, tempting human beings to seek the seats of power in those governments in order to rule over their fellow human beings as their slave masters so as to make war upon other governments in the attempt to conquer the whole of the earth and control it for themselves.
Such governments are not and cannot be of God for the benefit of mankind, and no God who gave human beings, His literal children, their agency (freedom) to choose Satan or God would institute governments built upon violence and aggression for some of his children to control and rule over the rest, enslave them, and keep them perpetually enslaved by denying them their freedom of choice and using threats of violence to compel them to obey. No, such governments are the creation of Satan, for as we have seen already, God’s ways are those of individual sovereignty and agency, the freedom of each individual to control his/her life and govern himself/herself, voluntarily choosing to use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, love unfeigned, and kindness in his/her interactions with fellow human beings. In other words, God’s ways are those of anarchy (no rulers) and voluntarism wherein each individual can maintain their agency and voluntarily choose God’s ways of voluntarily helping his/her fellow man or Satan’s ways of coercion and violence and receive his/her reward for his/her choice.
Author’s Note: there are many LDS members past and present who believe the church of the devil, the great and abominable church discussed in 1 Nephi 13-14 is the historical Catholic Church. Whether that be true or not is beside the point, and I personally don’t think there is one “religious” church that is the “great and abominable church of the devil,” just as I don’t believe there is only one anti-Christ. Rather, I view these things as umbrella labels for any organization or entity that matches their descriptions. But, even if one were to entertain the idea that The Catholic Church alone is the great and abominable church of the devil, an idea many hypocritical protestants of old would happily agree to, even if it were true, the historical Catholic Church was the established church of the Roman Empire and later of the nations and kingdoms of Europe and other parts of the world, wherein for centuries it alone controlled the governments of those kingdoms, acting as the world government for all those under its empire. So, whichever way you look at it, the great and abominable church of the devil is government, especially now that no one “religious” church controls the world any more in our era of “separation of church and state.” Indeed, I’d go as far as to argue government has become the new religion, the new God for so many who think they are being clever, wise and logical in rejecting the old religions of Semitic Judeo-Christianity. They’ve merely replaced it with a new religion and a new God, government, who’s founder and master is, ironically Satan. When Satan found he could not get humanity to kill and enslave each other over warring religions as religion lost its potency with the rise of the enlightenment and atheism, he switched tactics and used nationalism & government power and desires for world dominance to continue pitting humanity against each other in order to continue getting them to war with each other and kill and steal from each other and distract them from God and his ways of peaceful, loving, anarchy.
Taking these few verses alone and seeing the realities that no government can protect individual rights and thus exist in peace because of government’s inherent violent nature in which it must use violence to compel people to obey and thus violate their inherent human rights and their sovereignty as human beings, and that no such government could be instituted by a voluntarism and agency loving God, D&C 134 is already off to a bad start…IF we are to interpret its words using statist euphemisms. The reality of D&C 134 is that it was written by a fallible man, Joseph Smith Jr., who despite his brilliance and familiarity of the principle of anarchy as expressed so mightily in so many areas of the religion he created or “reorganized” on earth for Christ and its scriptural cannon, despite all his goodness, he was still nonetheless not born in a cultural and national vacuum. Joseph Smith was born and raised and came to adulthood just after the founding of the American Republic, when the propaganda about the consent of the governed through representative government and such was on high output, especially after the War of 1812, often called the “Second American Revolution.” It was only natural that Joseph Smith, Jr. would be brainwashed after having the constant propaganda of the ruling class that constituted the relentless attempt of said ruling class in Washington DC and its state equivalents to “legitimize” their “authority to rule” pounded into his head from birth by his parents, who themselves lived through the Revolution, and by society at large that he was forced to grow up in. Of course a man who grew up having the ruling class’s propaganda attempting to legitimate their “authority to rule” pounded into his head everywhere he went and looked would internalize it and turn around and bring it back into the religion he was creating. But that doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it “from God.” Thus, either D&C 134 is utterly flawed and must be scrapped altogether as scripture, OR perhaps looking at D&C 134 a different way, from an anarchist perspective, using anarchist vocabulary instead of statist propaganda euphemisms can help shed some light on what it really being said in D&C 134. And perhaps in doing so, it can be seen that D&C 134, far from upholding “human government” as we know it, actually upholds not “government,” but order and authority by means of anarchy and anarchist principles, i.e. voluntarism, the exact opposite of “government.”
Indeed, a shift in the vocabulary can help with this task. For example, instead of using “government,” in the verses of D&C 134, let us replace it with the words “systems of order based on principles of justice & human rights.” And instead of using “rulers,” “magistrates,” & “presidents/sovereigns,” we use “teachers” or “leaders.” Instead of “laws,” we use “principles”, and “suggest” or “nominate” for “enact.” And instead of “anarchy,” as used in verse 5, we use “chaos,” “disorder,” or lack of principles of justice.“ If we were to shift the vocabulary use in this way, we would start to get a very familiar picture, one in harmony with the principles of anarchy.
For example, it might look something like this:
We believe that voluntary systems of order based on upholding freedom, justice, & human rights were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making societal wide principles of justice to be abided by voluntarily and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that no voluntary systems of order based on upholding freedom, justice, & human rights can exist in apeace, except such societal wide principles of justice to be abided by are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the bfree exercise of cconscience, the right and control of property, and the dprotection of life [among other innumerable inalienable individual rights].
3 We believe that all voluntary systems of order based on upholding freedom, justice, & human rights necessarily require teachers and leaders to remind and make regular the societal wide principles of justice to be voluntarily abided by of the same; and that such as will administer the societal wide principles of justice to be abided by in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that societal wide principles of justice to be voluntarily abided by have a right to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that crime, i.e. aggressive violence and resultant harm against others should be restrained, but conscience should never be controlled; bguilt should be punished, but the freedom of the soul never suppressed.
5 We believe that all men are bound to asustain and uphold the respective voluntary systems of order based on upholding freedom, justice, & human rights in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the societal wide principles of justice to be abided by of such voluntary systems of order based on upholding freedom, justice, & human rights; and that sedition and crebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all voluntary systems of order based on upholding freedom, justice, & human rights have a right to suggest such societal wide principles of justice to be abided by as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest, i.e the upholding of the rights and sovereignty of every individual human being; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
Etc., Etc.,
Changing a few of the words in this manner can help the reader see that D&C 134 actually supports anarchy and anarchic principles of self ownership and no rulers and not the aggressively coercive and violent government like we know it today.
One still might look at verse 6 of D&C 134 and say, “aha! They used the word “anarchy” in a negative light, as something we should strive to avoid and because it means terror and chaos. This is again a product of Joseph Smith writing D&C 134 having been raised in the culture and statist society of the United States, which had a government, or a group of ruling class criminals who sought to use propaganda and myths and stories of heroism and patriotism to instill in the minds of their victims, the “governed,” the “ruled” the legitimacy of the ruling classes’s “authority” to rule. Of course a group of criminals who want to use violence to rule over everyone else to steal from them and claim the world in its entirety as their own would want to describe the lack of said “government” as “chaos” & “terror,” where violence and brute force rules. And they naturally chose “anarchy” as the evil taboo word to describe life without their “system” of ruling, without their “government.” The thick irony is that it is their very system of “government,” their alleged authority to rule over everyone else that is inherently dependent on violence and terror and chaos, not anarchy. Anarchy simply means no rulers & none of their coercive government dependent on violence to exist and enforce those rulers’ will. Anarchy is not disorder & chaos & terror; anarchy is in actuality the very thing the deceivers of the ruling class say THEIR system of “government” is, a system or order and protection of justice and of freedom, rights, and individuals and societies and thus a system of peace, peaceful living, and prosperity. The ruling class has simply twisted the words to be the opposite of what they really are, just as Satan does in calling evil good and good evil. In this case, Satan’s minions, i.e. the ruling class, call anarchy chaos and violent terror and chaos and violent terror order and peaceful living, i.e. “government." So, suffice it to say that in writing D&C 134, Joseph Smith Jr., was nearly there, being so close to writing about anarchy and its principles of peaceful living, such as found in the Book of Mormon. But his fallible humanity as well as his having been raised in an extremely propaganda heavy, imperialist nation that sought to rule as much of the world as it could by a few of its citizens, the rich and wealthy ruling class, such things meddled with his brain and caused him to put some things in D&C 134 that really oughtn’t to be there. Or perhaps it could be said he was confused so as to word things so poorly due to that ruling class propaganda influence he was surrounded by coming of age in the Early Republic just after the War of 1812. Either way, D&C 134, as it is written right now, if statist euphemisms are used to define it wording, does harmonize with the rest of the principles of anarchy found in the Book of Mormon, which will shortly be discussed. D&C 134 could be interpreted to be more harmonious with the principle of anarchy as expressed in the Book of Mormon IF one alters the vocabulary a bit. The principles of anarchy are in there in D&C 134, they just have to be fleshed out a bit more in other areas by using different vocabulary words instead of statist, ruling class euphemisms used to try to legitimize their authority to rule over others.
Personally, I opt for the redefining of the terms used. I think D&C 134 is perfectly fine and has enough saving graces in it as it is, but we must learn to look at those saving graces first and foremost and use them to help us interpret and redefine the words being used in the rest of the context, as I have attempted to do in the last few paragraphs. I personally think in doing so, D&C 134 ceases being a condemnation of anarchy as it is commonly misunderstood to mean (i.e. disorder, chaos, violence, terror, no rules, etc.) and instead becomes a praising proponent and a guide book of anarchy as it really is, i.e. a way of peaceful interrelation living between human beings that is based on order, voluntary agreements, principles of justice, mercy, non-aggression, individual self-ownership, and which is even entirely compatible with hierarchy and authority so long as it is voluntary and retains self-ownership. I personally believe there was inspiration from God in Joseph Smith, Jr. writing this section down but that Joseph Smith’s cultural and social human lens clouded his ability to interpret the revelation correctly or write it out clearly in the way it was intended by God and instead he wrote in the way HE understood it but which was not the way it was meant to be understood. Or put differently, I personally believe that some of that inspiration of anarchy from God, an anarchist himself, slipped through despite the American lens of the scribe that wrote it. We just have to learn to redefine those problematic terms that make D&C appear to be non-sensical and illogical if interpreted by the common meanings of today.
That is how I, as a Latter Day Saint anarchist who takes much inspiration from Mormon scripture makes sense of D&C 134; I interpret it through an anarchist lens using anarchist vocabulary and principles that are already there in the section but which must be fleshed out and then used to interpret the rest of the passage. And in doing so, D&C 134 ceases to be illogical and problematic regarding anarchy and instead becomes supportive of it.
Then, of course, another third possible way to interpret D&C 134 and it’s semantics and uses of words like “government” is to assume government doesn’t actually mean a centralized, inherently aggressive, violent, & coercive “authority,” or rather, it doesn’t need to be interpreted that way. There is a possible interpretation of the word “government” used therein to mean something more akin to the verb “govern,” as in to “govern” oneself or govern one’s emotions, to control and regulate but not in a violent, coercive manner, like a church government, a corporate or business government, a club government, or some other voluntary basis of getting things accomplished and overseeing the system of said voluntary organization and its parts & members. Some anarchists, like Larken Rose, would not call that “government,” as he has a very specific definition of that term that excludes anything done on a voluntary basis. Rose differentiates between “voluntarism” and “government,” seeing the two are polar opposites; fair enough. I understand well his point in differentiating the two. But, others, and the English language in general, would call “voluntarism” or a voluntarist society wherein its structure of getting things accomplished through hierarchical yet still voluntary oversight and regulation as “government.” I don’t particularly hard and fast attach myself to one definition over the other, so it I am not making an argument that the word “government” SHOULD be interpreted in the Rosian manner or in the other manner described here, Larken Rose’s “Voluntarism.” But what I AM arguing is that if government here is interpreted to be the Rosian definition of “Voluntarism” instead of the violence and coercion based definition, D&C 134 can make a lot more sense from an anarchist perspective. Either way, the reality is that most Mormons, including very likely the LDS Church leadership (dare I say, it’s government?) interpret D&C 134 wrongfully, by unfortunately seeing “government” as used in the chapter as the inherently violent and coercive system of control of others that we live under today, which is actually warlordism, though they don’t recognize they are doing this. Of course, when described this way, according to what government is in reality, warlordism, Most Mormons, let alone most people would not dare support such. But sadly, most Mormons and most people do not yet see this reality of government, the so-called “violence inherent in the system.”
Sadly, most Mormons have been conditioned by indoctrination within and without the LDS Church to see D&C 134 as saying “a violent and coercive system of control over society is necessary to stave of “anarchy,” which they would define as “violent & coercive chaos.” Most Mormons sadly mix up or conflate the two words and “systems,” “government” and “anarchy,” seeing “government” as “order” & “protection of rights”/“safety” when in reality the exact opposite is true; in reality, anarchy is order, freedom, and protection of rights while “government” is violent, chaotic, mob rule or warlordism, whichever form of tyranny happens to develop under its inherently violent coercive system of rule by fear. Ironically, in many places, both mob-rule and warlordism have become the norm in most of the world, wherein warlords going by euphemisms like “presidents,” “governors,” “legislators,” “judges,” “sheriffs,” “prime ministers,” “monarchs,” etc., use mob rule, or majoritarian tyranny to ensure their positions as warlords, i.e. “democracy.”
But Most Mormons today don’t yet understand that reality & thus tend to misinterpret D&C 134 & thus misinterpret people like me when we call for anarchy. I know that this is how most Mormons see D&C 134 because I myself used to see it that way. I used to condemn anarchy because I used to not understand it. Before I had anarchy explained to me and I understood the true nature of anarchy and “government,” I bought in to the statist and authoritarian propaganda that “government” ensured peace, order, and freedom while anarchy meant or lead to disorder, chaos, violence, and tyranny. I used to eschew the word “anarchy”/“anarchist” and wanted nothing to do with it; this is because I didn’t understand it. In short, dear reader, I was once like you. But, over time, experience, and much humility, I came to understand what both “anarchy” and “government” truly meant, being in reality the inverse of the statist/authoritarian propaganda, and I…repented of may ignorance, becoming a true convert to “anarchy” and the peace, freedom, & order it leads to. And if I, someone who did all I could to eschew the word “anarchy” could see the error of my ways, see reality as it truly is, and change, then so can anyone else. As we shall see, the principles of anarchy clearly presented in the Book of Mormon, which I argue and firmly believe are the basis of Christ’s message and thus for Christ’s restored “gospel” on the earth - these principles tell us we must look at D&C 134 differently from how it’s traditionally seen & interpreted, for it makes no sense otherwise and is logically unsound otherwise. You can’t have a “peaceful, violent coercion dependent government” that ensures the rights of individuals. The two notions just can’t exist together in reality and are like oil and water. And thus D&C 134 cannot logically be interpreted as being in support of violent coercion dependent government. Rather, government has to, logically and morally, be interpreted as voluntary self control and nothing more for D&C 134 to have any sensical meaning and thus any value as scripture. For it makes no sense whatsoever for an all loving, all merciful, all just parent God to institute aggressively violent coercion dependent “government” for the benefit of his children, humankind and each individual’s rights. No, to be in harmony with the notions of God being an all loving, all merciful, all just parent deity who gave humankind its agency for individuals to choose, the notion that God instituted “government” for the benefit of mankind and his rights must be interpreted in the sense of “government” meaning voluntary self-control and voluntary collaborations in order to create order and progress.
Now, without further comment, I shall proceed to going through the Book of Mormon, chapter by chapter, and fleshing out the principles of anarchy found therein. And many such principles there are, indeed so much so that the Book of Mormon is in many ways a book of anarchy.
Principles of Anarchy Found In The Book Of Mormon
The Book of Mormon starts it’s storyline with a 600 AD or thereabouts Jewish resident of Jerusalem named Nephi and his family, consisting of his father Lehi, his mother Sariah, his brothers, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and his sisters, who for whatever reason remain unnamed. There is much that occurs in this first book of Nephi, but his account of his family’s story is conveniently summarized thusly by Nephi himself:
An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah, and his four sons, being called, (beginning at the eldest) Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi. The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity and they seek to destroy his life. He taketh three days’ journey into the wilderness with his family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returneth to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings. They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife. They take their families and depart into the wilderness. Their sufferings and afflictions in the wilderness. The course of their travels. They come to the large waters. Nephi’s brethren rebel against him. He confoundeth them, and buildeth a ship. They call the name of the place Bountiful. They cross the large waters into the promised land, and so forth.
Anarchy and peaceful fleeing into the wilderness:
The first thing that needs to be understood about Anarchy is that it is a way of living socially with other human beings in a community of any size that is built upon peace and non-aggression. Peaceful living in Anarchy means not aggressing upon others thru unjustified, unprovoked coercive violence wherein one person attacks the sovereignty and rights of another without just cause. Anarchy is not synonymous with non-violence. There is an inherent difference between non-violence and non-aggression. Anarchy condones violence that is purely defensive, violence used to repel a violent attacker as well as equal violence used to doll out equal justice for a wrong committed by an attacker against an innocent, non-violent victim. Simply put, if A attempts to take the life, freedom, or property of B, B is justified in defending his or her life, freedom, and property from A using violence equal to the violence A brings first, even to taking of A’s life if needs be. Such events and what is considered just defensive violence will of course depend on the specifics of the situation at hand. B is also justified in using defensive violence to get back his or her freedom and/or property stolen by A. How this is best done in an anarchic society is a debate for a different time. Suffice it to say B is justified in using defensive violence to retrieve the life, liberty, and/or property aggressively taken by A even after A’s attack has stopped. This is known as justice. What B can justly take back from A can only, according to justice, be equal to what was aggressively taken by A. So if A aggressively attempts to take B’s life, B is justified in taking A’s life; if A steals B’s property, B is justified in using defensive violence to protect or retrieve it back after the theft occurs. But, B is also justified in refraining from using defensive violence and attempting to flee the attackers, if possible. B is justified during an attack in either fight or flight. B is also justified in offering mercy by refraining from exercising justice against his or her attacker A, during or after the attack. In short, Anarchy is all about peaceful living by teaching that each person is sovereign over his or her life and no one else is justified in attempting to control any other person’s life, life decisions, or justly acquired property through aggressive violence. This by nature dismisses aggressively coercive government as we have known it throughout history and as we know it today, whether it be called monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, republicanism, dictatorship, etc. If it involves one portion of society or a community, however big or small forcing its will and way of life upon another portion, and aggressively taking the property and sovereignty of that other portion, however great or small in number, this is aggressively coercive government, i.e. statism, and is unjustified violence. There is much more that can be said about Anarchic society and justified and unjustified violence, but let this suffice for now. Let us turn back to the account of Nephi and his family.
Nephi’s father, Lehi begins to preach repentance to the people of Jerusalem for their sins, in a voice of warning that should they refrain from their repenting of their sins, Jerusalem would be attacked and destroyed by foreign invaders from Babylon for their iniquity; they in turn attempted to take his life. What were the sins and iniquity of the people of Jerusalem? It can’t be known for certain, but we can glean from other parts of LDS and Biblical scripture that their iniquity included aggression towards others, including murder. Nephi says he and family lived in Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah, which can be coordinated with the Bible in 2 Kings 24. Zedekiah ruled Jerusalem in wickedness and evil, as his nephew, Jehoiakim had done; Jehoiakim had ruled Jerusalem as king in wickedness and evil as his father, Josiah had done, and so on all the way back to the Manasseh, the 14th king of the Kingdom of Judah, which included Jerusalem. What was one of the major crimes of Manasseh during his rule, called out specifically twice, and used as justification by God to allow Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon to conquer & eventually destroy the Kingdom of Judah? Manasseh’s shedding of innocent blood, i.e. murder, the murder of the inhabitants of his kingdom. So much innocent blood of his people and perhaps others did he spill that it filled the streets of Jerusalem. Thus, Zedekiah continued the evils of Manasseh, from which can be deduced by logical conclusion that it’s a strong possibility he too was very likely guilty of spilling innocent blood, AKA murder as well.
We can also surmise that the sins & iniquity of the inhabitants of Jerusalem Lehi preached repentance of likely included murder and other similar aggression towards others from the LDS account of the the justification of the Biblical flood during the time of Noah, found in what is known as the Pearl of Great Price in the Book of Moses, chapters 7, verses 32-33, and chapter 8, verses 28-30, that aggressive violence, including murder, theft, and slavery between the peoples of the earth was rampant, indeed so rampant that they were beyond repentance and so much innocent blood cried for justice that they could not have claim of mercy upon them and justice had to have its due; thus the destruction by flood.
Chapter 7:
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own ahands, and I gave unto them their bknowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his cagency;
33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should alove one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they bhate their own blood;
28 The aearth was bcorrupt before God, and it was filled with violence.
29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its away upon the earth.
30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will adestroy all flesh from off the earth.
The justice or injustice of the Biblical flood is a debate for another time and another piece and shall not be considered herein. Suffice it to say that from the rest of the Bible and other LDS scriptural record of the history of the world, we can surmise with ease that the iniquity Lehi called upon the people of Jerusalem to repent very likely included murder, theft, enslavement, war, and all manner of aggressive violence upon innocents via government or other less coordinated efforts by individuals, not at all unlike our own civilization today and all the theft, murder, enslavement and other forms of aggressive violence that occurs on a daily basis by either individuals or groups of individuals and warlords who call themselves “government.” Indeed, those of us who publicly and vocally preach the peaceful living of Anarchy and anti-war and the need for peoples and governments to stop the systematic slaughter and enslavement of other people could be likened to Lehi and his call to repentance. Either way, whatever their specific sins and iniquity were, the people of Jerusalem sought the life of Lehi for his publicly stating his opinion vocally about their need to repent of their iniquity and the consequences that would come from refusing to do so. And thus in part because they sought to kill Lehi, as well as because he sought to escape the coming Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem he and others like the Biblical Prophet Jeremiah foretold, Lehi and his family chose the peaceful, anarchic means of escaping tyranny and aggressive violence by leaving most of their property and possessions, which were great, and fleeing Jerusalem for the unclaimed, unworked wilderness of the world that is the birthright of every human being to take advantage of and use the to start anew. And herein lies one of the first examples of Anarchic, peaceful living in the Book of Mormon, in the very first chapter. Lehi could have stayed and sought to protect his life, family, and property through defensive violence, but he likely would not have been successful, as those in power and the multitude were united against him and unjustly tried to kill him for his expressing his opinion. It was the wiser move on his part to choose to flee and fight another day against aggressors when the odds were not stacked against him so greatly by his having the misfortune to be surrounded and vastly outnumbered by aggressive hostiles. Lehi chose to protect himself and his family via the peace and freedom of secession and decentralization inherent in flight from tyranny, much as the African-American slaves sought the same in their attempts to flee the American South for the North.
The next big event in the story of Nephi that needs discussing as it will be called by unthinking critics as theft and murder by Nephi involves his and his brothers’ peaceful attempts to obtain the Brass Plates, a record of the Jews from a high ranking government official of Jerusalem, Laban, who was subsequently beheaded by Nephi after Laban had sought Nephi’s life and had stolen his property. The first attempt on obtaining the records is made by Nephi’s brother Laman, who simply politely requested the plates from Laban. Laban accused Laman of being a robber, forced him from his house and sought Laman’s life, simply for asking for the record. Laban was the aggressor here, rewarding a simple peaceful request with not only unjust accusations of non-existent aggression by Laman, but with attempts to kill him for simply asking for the records. Was it the smartest plan on the part of Laman to simply go and ask for the records? Probably not; but we have no account of whether Laman attempted to offer compensation for them or not. Either way, from what we know from the story, there was no attempt by Laman to steal the records from Laban, and Laban’s attempts to kill Laman were unjust aggression. Laman was certainly within his right to simply request the records, even though it wasn’t the smartest of plans, though to be fair Laban was within his right to refuse to give the records. Laban was NOT within his right to accuse Laman of theft and attempt to kill him for simply asking for some of his property. That would be like you or I encountering a homeless beggar on the street asking for alms and immediately you or I accused him of robbery and tried to kill him. You or I would be guilty of attempted murder in such a hypothetical situation. In Laban’s attempt to kill Laman for simply asking for the plates, Laman would have been justified in defending himself by use of returned defensive violence, but it would have been futile as he was outnumbered by aggressors since he was on Laban’s property. Thus, Laman wisely chose to defensively and peacefully flee. Laman had to be careful in his flight, though, as Laban would have sent his private police force, his hired mercenaries to chase after Laman and follow him to his brothers outside the city walls to fulfill their foul deed of murder of not only Laman but of his brothers as well. We can surmise this as this is exactly what occurred at the second attempt by Nephi and his brothers to peacefully obtain the plates.
The second attempt to peacefully obtain the records from Laban came when Nephi and his brothers returned to their old property, obtained the gold and silver they had left, and sought to purchase the brass plates from Laban with said gold and silver. Laban once again was the aggressor, stealing their property and forcing them from his own property by trying to once again kill them by sending his servants after them as they fled. They had to flee carefully once again so as not to be discovered within or without the city walls as they were being pursued by Laban’s private police force in the attempt murder them. So this time, not only did Laban meet a peaceful attempt to purchase his record with aggressive theft of Lehi’s property, but also with a second attempt of murder of Nephi and his siblings.
Indeed, these attempts of murder by Laban, a high ranking member of Jerusalem society, likely a man of rank in the Jewish government in some form himself, is even further evidence that the sins and iniquity of Jerusalem Lehi preached repentance of very likely included the shedding of innocent blood, not at all unlike our own society in the USA today with its government officials, whether legislator, executive, judge, or so-called “law enforcer” who make commit all manner of murder most foul for power, money, status advancement, or even cuz they have deluded themselves that “it’s just their job.”
Upon returning to their hiding place outside the Jerusalem city walls after fleeing the 2nd murder attempt by Laban’s “servants,” Nephi’s brothers begin to get angry with and start beating Nephi and his younger, Sam with a stick. Or in other words, they got angry and aggressed violently against Nephi because of his insistent upon fulfilling his father’s and ultimately, as the story asserts, God’s instruction to obtain the records of the Jews upon the brass plates in the possession of Laban. It is not difficult to imagine oneself in that situation getting understandably angry and upset at having nearly been murdered twice and having all of one’s wealth and property stolen. It’s not incredibly difficult to imagine getting mad at Nephi, either, for being so insistent on obtaining the plates and putting the blame for twice attempted murder and theft of one’s inheritance. But to then take that anger and start aggressing on Nephi’s person, as well as the other innocent brother Sam, is injustice, an unjust use of aggressive violence against the sovereignty of another person. After all, Nephi, and by extension Sam, who looked to and followed Nephi as a role model and leader, was not responsible for Laban’s decisions to steal their property and commit a second attempt of murder against Nephi and his brothers. Nephi nor Sam, no Lehi were responsible for the decision of Laban’s “servants” to follow his instructions to chase after them and murder them. Laban alone was responsible for his actions, as were his “servants” in following his orders to steal from and murder Nephi and his brothers. This is a key tenet as found in Mormonism, as will be seen later in the storyline of the Book of Mormon, that of agency, i.e. freedom to choose to act for oneself and the accompanying responsibility for one’s actions. This notion of personal freedom and sovereignty over oneself as well as the corresponding duty of being held accountable for one’s actions is also a key hallmark principle of anarchy as well. In anarchist thought, if one chooses to invest his justly acquired property in some business or other market venture, and comes out the better for having done so, he is entitled to the just acquisitions of his just investment. Similarly, if he one chooses to use his or her property to knowingly commit fraud and thereby steal others’ property, such as in some kind of Ponzi scheme and it is discovered, that person, by justice, must be held accountable for his actions. But in anarchism, everyone individual human being, being absolutely free and sovereign, cannot be held responsible for the actions of others, only those of himself/herself. Thus, while Laman and Lemuel could of course choose unwisely to be unjustly angry at Nephi and Sam, though in truth none of the attempted murders and thievery by Laban was their fault or responsibility, there was absolutely no justification for their violence against Nephi and Sam. In the midst of Laman and Lemuel’s aggression towards their brothers, the story tells that an angel of God appears before them and commands them to stop their unjust aggression upon their innocent brothers, telling them that inasmuch as they continue in their unjust anger and violent tendencies toward him and inasmuch as Nephi chooses to be just, non-aggressive toward others, and follow God, he would be a “ruler” over them. This statement harkens back to the 2nd chapter, wherein Nephi is told the same thing, that due to his “righteousness,” i.e. his peacefulness, meekness, humility, and non-aggressive way of living, he would be chosen to lead his aggressive, angry, unjustly rebellious and prideful elder brothers. He would be a “ruler and a teacher” over them.
Rulers & Teachers
A ruler? But, anarchist critics might be heard to say, anarchy means “no rulers!” This is an inherently non-anarchic part of the Book of Mormon. But to jump to that conclusion is to hyper fixate on the tree at the expense of ignoring the forest, to ignore the entire context of the message in these verses and the chapters that come before and after. Anarchism has been defined by many as meaning “no rulers.” The Latin and Greek roots of the word indeed do mean this, taken from Greek “anarkhos," translated literally as “an,” or “without,” and “arkhos,” or “ruler.” Anarchists have and will endlessly debate what specifically this means, or what it means to be “without a ruler,” but suffice it to say that, in the very least, it can reasonably be agreed by all anarchists that this definitely means no aggressively violent & coercive actions by one group of people on another in a community calling themselves a “state” or a “government,” meaning no governments, whether world, national, state, county, or municipal, monarchic, aristocratic, oligarchic, democratic/republican, theocratic, or dictatorship as we know them today. Each individual is 100% sovereign over their own lives, their life decisions, and their justly acquired property and no single individual or group of individuals has any right to sovereign power over any other human being or group of them. Such would make literally every single national and local aggressively violent and coercive government existent in the world today null & void, or no force. Of course this is not the reality we live in, but this is at least the anarchic theory. But the word “ruler” has, at least in our modern English, multiple meanings. It could mean a president/prime minister, king, oligarch, dictator, or otherwise some form of tyrant. But it could also mean a teacher, someone who instructs and leads but not aggressively, violently, or coercively, someone who is followed voluntarily by others for his or her wisdom. This is the most logical sense of the word “ruler” as used in 1 Nephi chapter 2 when it says that because of the rebellious and murderous nature of Laman and Lemuel’s hearts toward their father and their brother. If we remember in the 2nd chapter of 1 Nephi, as soon as Lehi and his family fled into the wilderness, Laman and Lemuel begin to harden their hearts against their father for his uprooting them from their comfy home and life in Jerusalem and begin to mock him. And as it says in verse 13 of 1 Npehi chapter 2, “And they [Laman and Lemuel] were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father.” Now we don’t necessarily know at this point that Laman and Lemuel tried to kill their father, or perhaps that they even wanted to at that time. But we can surmise from this statement that, in the very least, murder was in their hearts just as it was in the people of Jerusalem Lehi preached repentance to. Of course, anyone and everyone is “capable” of murder, and indeed who hasn’t had the thought of killing someone one is furious at come to their mind. But thoughts and desires of the heart are two entirely different things. Thoughts of killing someone that one is angry at can come and go with anyone, even the most peaceable and non-aggressive individuals. But having a murderous heart, being of a murderous and aggressive nature, i.e. a tyrant, is entirely different. Laman and Lemuel were of the latter sort, tyrants & bullies who gave in to their passions and unjust anger and lashed out aggressively and thus unjustly against innocent others. They may not have when they first arrived in the wilderness and began to mock and abuse their father verbally, at least, but they certainly did later on in the story, not to long after their arrival in the wilderness.
Thus, due to their murderous and aggressive tendencies toward physically abusing & harming others, they were deemed to be lesser to their more just and non-aggressive younger brother, who would be a leader over them, not one who has dominion over them as a governor who exercises authority over them and forces them to do things against their will, not a tyrant. Rather, his ruling over them would, as we will see as the storyline of the Book of Mormon continues, consist of their not being able to overpower him in the long term through their aggression toward him. As long as he continued in his righteous, non-aggressive living, Nephi would always come out the final victor over their attempts to aggress upon his sovereignty over himself, over their aggressive violence toward him. In short, he would prosper due to his choosing to live by anarchic principles and they would not due to their choices to live as tyrants. They may have temporary “victories” in their tyranny over Nephi, but in the end they would lose their unjust war against him and his descendants.
Killing Laban.
After an angel of God stops his brothers from beating him, very possibly killing him, and tells him Laban would be delivered into his hands that night, Nephi goes once more into Jerusalem to attempt to obtain the brass plates from Laban, not knowing exactly how it would occur since he had no more property with which to try to exchange again with Laban and he knew Laban would simply try to kill him again. It was toward evening when Nephi sees Laban approaching, obviously very drunk, collapsing in the street in a drunken stupor. Nephi see Laban is wearing a sword, a very fine and expensive sword. He is prompted by the spirit of God to kill Laban by beheading him and then use his clothes and sword to go to Laban’s house to obtain the records pretending to be Laban. Nephi shrinks from the task, having never killed and not wanting to kill. But as God explains to him, Laban attempted to murder Nephi and brothers twice, and stole his family’s property, and would have attempted the same murderous intents had Nephi simply tried to find an another way to persuade Laban to impart the plates to him. So, due to Laban’s theft and attempts on Nephi and his brothers’ lives, Nephi was justified in taking Laban’s life and his sword and clothes to obtain the plates in just recompense for the Laban’s stealing Nephi’s family’s property, which was likely in much greater quantity that what Nephi obtained in the return in the form of the sword and the brass plates, monetarily speaking. In anarchic thought, if someone seeks to take you life, you are justified in taking his/hers first in self defense. If someone takes your property, you are entitled to use coercion to get it or something in equal value back as restitution. Some may try to argue that beheading Laban in his drunken stupor is murder and that Nephi was not justified in doing so, that he should have used the legal system to obtain justice and restitution. The system was filled with people who had tried to kill Nephi’s father, Lehi for preaching repentance of their murderous and evil ways, and Laban has close access to and much control over that system of justice given his wealth and prominence in Jerusalem. He was likely a member of the Jewish government in some fashion. So to expect Nephi to get any justice from such a system filled with people who wanted him and his family dead, and especially when Nephi and his brothers had no more property and money with which to use to their advantage in the Jewish courts or justice system, is ludicrous. They wouldn’t have gotten anything in the way of justice from using the Jewish court system. Plus, Laban tried killing Nephi and his brother not once but very likely twice. And had Laban not passed out drunk in the street before he recognized who Nephi was, he very likely would have tried to kill Nephi right then and there with his sword. Thus, Nephi was completely justified in taking Laban’s life, as he would never had received any kind of justice from whatever justice system the Kingdom of Judah possessed at the time as its government was, like ours today in the US, filled with murderers, thieves, and other criminals, and Laban being a prominent wealthy member of of that society, possibly even involved in government himself or at least very well connected to the Jewish gov., there was no hope of Nephi getting justice, let alone escaping with his life. The Jewish government and justice system would be biased against Nephi, A.) because of his father’s preachings against their wickedness, and B.) because they would be biased toward believing wealthy and well connected Laban, also a murderer and thief over Nephi, the son of the man who preached against their wickedness and whose family fled leaving all their property behind. Nephi was also completely justified in taking Laban’s sword, clothes, and by innocent trickery the brass plates, having already paid for the plates & sword with his property that Laban stole and in restitution for Laban having tried to kill him and brothers twice.
Nephi, taking Laban’s clothes and sword, enters Laban’s records house and, pretending to be Laban, asks the servant to get him the brass plates. The servant complies and brings him the plates, which they take together to Nephi’s brothers outside the city walls. When Nephi reveals himself to his brothers, Laban’s servant, whose name is Zoram attempts to flee in which Nephi restrain him temporarily while he explains what is happening. Nephi was justified in restraining Zoram, putting his hands upon Zoram’s body to do so because Zoram, not knowing who Nephi and his brothers were, would have alerted the Jewish authorities that Nephi stole the plates and killed Laban, which would put Nephi and his brothers in trouble with the Jewish gov, the same one filled with evil, wicked people whom Nephi’s father preached repentance to, who they in turn desired to murder because he exposed their murderers, thievery, and aggressions against the people of Jerusalem. We’ve already seen Nephi was completely justified in killing Laban and taking his sword, clothes, armor, and the plates for himself as restitution for Laban’s crimes against Nephi and his brothers. Had the Jewish authorities been alerted by Zoram, they would have most definitely killed Nephi and his brothers and taken the brass plates from them, accusing them of the very things they themselves were guilty of, i.e. murder and theft. In protection of themselves and their innocence, it was justified for Nephi to lay his hands on Zoram to stop him committing an aggression against Nephi and co by alerted the Jewish authorities of what Nephi had done, as Nephi was justified and innocent. And restrain Zoram Nephi did and explained the situation to him while he restrained him. And Zoram, knowing the wickedness and evil of his former master, Laban and of those who he represented and had connections with in the Jewish government, he believed Nephi and decided to go with him and his brothers and flee with them back to their family in the wilderness. Nephi promises to spare Zoram’s life and make him a free man if he went with Nephi and co into the wilderness back to Lehi and the rest of the family. It’s interesting he uses the word “free man” here, because it could mean a couple different things. It could mean that, as Laban’s “servant,” by servant it could have meant slave or indenture, and thus as such Zoram was in bondage to Laban for some length of time. Fleeing into the wilderness with Nephi and co would certainly end his enslavement to Laban’s family, making him free. It could mean Zoram was a hired servant and that, as a good man, staying in Jerusalem would only make him a slave of the evil, murderous, thieving Jewish government in power at the time, and thus to escape that oppression and what was to come with the complete sacking of Jerusalem and the ending of the Kingdom of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Zoram would have to flee with Nephi and co into the wilderness. Either way, her we see again that anarchist principle of literal individual secession from tyranny and slavery by individual flight from said tyranny and its realm and territories. The fleeing of tyranny enslavement is the anarchist assertion of one’s rights to their body, life, labor, and property, which rights belong solely to each individual.
It’s also interesting to note that Lehi and his family didn’t just flee Jerusalem for another city or kingdom/nation. No, they chose to flee into the wilderness and steer clear of social establishments where governments and their violent laws and aggressive coercion remained. They fled to wilderness where no government and thus no laws existed, so as not to be enslaved by said governments and their “laws,” and instead remain truly free and independently, 100% sovereign over themselves, choosing their own fates as free individuals. Now it’s can’t be said for certain how Lehi ran his family, whether he was patriarchal or if he ran it in partnership with Sariah and his adult children, but judging from the righteousness of Lehi, it is my guess that he was no tyrannical patriarch dictating to the rest of the members of his family. He was a favored person of God, like Nephi, which logically can be surmised that he was very much like Nephi and recognized the individual sovereignty of his family members and did not rule over them with an iron patriarchal fist. This pattern of fleeing the tyranny and slavery of established cities/nations/kingdoms with the centralized states and police forces/militaries for the freedom of the anarchic wilderness and hinterlands where law and gov. had a much smaller presence, if it existed at all, it features prominently in the history of our own country, the USA, and can be seen as the best solution, bodily secession, to an established tyranny. From the beginning of the history of the US, colonists from Europe came here to escape the tyrannies of their European homelands where land and resources were plentiful and the centralized state hardly existed, if at all. Such freedom seekers fleeing the established, centralized tyrannies of Europe chose the anarchic wilderness on purpose, so as to be completely free and 100% individually sovereign. Of course, once these freedom seekers came and established societies and towns and later cities, old habits of centralized state forming and their inherent aggressive, violent coercion returned, forcing other sick and tired of the newly erected tyrannies in the once anarchic wilderness to flee even further into the wilderness. Roger Williams comes to mind with his fleeing the tyranny of Boston and the Massachusetts Bay Company under tyrannical, intolerant Puritan rule, buying land from the native Americans and establishing what would become Providence Plantations and Rhode Island, built upon religious freedom. Or the Mormons who fled tyrannical Missouri, Illinois, and the US in general for the ungoverned wilderness territory of Mexico in the mid 1840s after Joseph Smith’s martyrdom. Or the outlaws and pioneers who fled the tyranny of the “civilized” Eastern states and their centralized tyrannies for the wilderness in the territories where law and gov. hardly existed, if at all. Examples abound of such anarchic bodily secession from tyranny by fleeing to the anarchic wilderness in Us history. Lehi and his family were no different. They chose the harsh and wild wilderness for the freedom to be sovereign individuals over their own lives that it offered, much like their Hebrews ancestors who fled slavery in Egypt for the freedom of the wilderness.
Of course, in our modern day in age, where the cartel gangs masquerading as “governments” have carved up every speck of dirt and rock for their own, calling it their “national territory” divided up by “national boundaries,” secession by flight to the wilderness is all but impossible today like it was 100+ years ago. Sure, there are still places in the world, even the USA, that are less inhabited, that are apart of US federal or state territories but where populations hardly exist, if at all, and thus neither does government. Places such as the lower Alaskan Islands and indeed much of Alaska itself, the Rocky Mountain states, the Four Corners deserts, Appalachia, or much of North Western Canada and even Washington state still have isolated, wilderness feel where government, tho it technically exists due to territory hunger cravings of the federal & state governments, doesn’t truly exist in practice and actuality. But gone are the days where there is still vast wilderness unclaimed by nations and their centralized tyrannies, where you go flee to to start anew in anarchic freedom and never see another soul for months, years, or even decades, like existed in Nephi’s time. Yes, one could flee to the wildernesses of Alaska or the North Western Territories, but survival there would be extremely difficult unless one had a vast amount of wealth in which to buy and build everything one needed there to survive the harsh climate and remoteness. One could homestead the seas, which are technically not claimed by any nation today, though the major powers of the US, China, and Russia would surely like to try. They do as they please on them anyway, just as they do as they please wherever they have influence & power on the land. One could pool resources with others and buy a used cruise ship or other large vessel and spend their days fishing and growing hydroponic and other types of gardens on the vessel. But regardless of where one attempts to flee to be free, the technology of today possessed by tyrannical governments would surely let them easily find you and destroy you if they really wanted to and obtaining resources for survival and surviving in the extreme climatic conditions of the few remaining wildernesses, whether on land or sea, as well as the wealth needed for such survival, is beyond the average enslaved individual alive today. Plus, most people alive today have no knowledge of how to survive outside of human society like our forebears who braved the habitable wildernesses of the last few centuries and before. It could be learned, with the help of the internet and books and such, but not quickly. Today, with the spread of the centralized tyrannical imperial state into every nook and cranny of the earth, we have to secede and flee to the safety of freedom in other, more creative ways besides literal flight to wilderness. But I shall not go into the details of how to do so here. That is another topic for another time in another piece.
Fleeing into the wilderness to escape tyranny, regardless of the time in history it occurred, was always an extremely risky businesses, a true last resort of those attempting to escape tyranny. There’s safety in numbers. If it were possible, they always stuck close enough by to settlements for resources and protection. And if possible, most tried to do everything they could to not have to flee into the wilderness. The Israelites tried for quite some time to convince Pharaoh to free their people and leave them be to be free in their settlements in Egypt, but Pharaoh refused and ended up paying the ultimate prices, according to Biblical record. Fleeing into the wilderness to escape the slavery of Egypt was their last resort after every other means had been attempted to be free and stay in Egypt. The same goes for Lehi and his family; Lehi attempted to preach repentance to the people of Jerusalem, most likely its political and economic leaders, along with others calling them to repentance as well. But in doing so, in pleading with them to stop their tyrannical aggressions toward others, he painted a target on his back. It’s always risky speaking out against the tyrants and slavers one is ruled over by. Tyrants and slavers hate to have their “authority” and power challenged, their status, wealth, and ease/comfort in life afforded by their plundering, murdering, and otherwise living off the work and treasure of others threatened by those they tyrannize and enslave. Most times when one pleads for one’s freedom, it falls on deaf ears as most tyrants refuse to give up the power they have enjoyed over others willingly. And when one does, most tyrants and slavers will seek to punish the one that’s speaks out and seeks their freedom. Lehi and his slave masters in the Jerusalem gov. and society were no different. They sought to kill him and he and his family only fled the conveniences and safety of society in Jerusalem as a last resort. But in fleeing, they did so together as a family, as did the Hebrews in fleeing Egypt. It’s easier to survive if one flees into the wilderness for freedom as a group, especially as a group of friends or relatives where love already exists. Fleeing into the wilderness alone or in small numbers always increases the risk of not surviving. The point is, fleeing tyranny and enslavement by escaping into the wilderness or hinterlands has always been a key principle of anarchy and is always an option, but it usually remains a last ditched effort due to it risks, especially when it involves fleeing into the true wildernesses of the world, and it’s always best done with others one knows and trusts. Lehi and his family tried to avoid having to do so, but the tyranny of Jerusalem in its leaders seeking Lehi’s life forced their hand to fall back on that principle of anarchy that is fleeing tyranny for the wilderness, especially when one stands no chance in fighting back defensively against the aggressions of a foe that has much greater numbers. It’s often best to flee and live to fight another day when outnumbered.
Indeed, the principle of anarchy of fleeing tyranny and slavery into the wilderness along with others if at all possible is also present in the Book of Mormon in many places. But we see it early on in 1st Nephi 7, where Nephi and brothers again return to Jerusalem a second time before fleeing permanently so as to obtain the family of Ishmael. Again, Lehi’s family numbered at least close to 10 as it was, but with the family of Ishmael, there were wives for Nephi, Sam, Laman, and Lemuel, Ishmael and his wife, a wife for Zoram, Laban’s former slave, and husbands for Nephi’s sisters, however many they numbered. Increasing the numbers of one’s fleeing party again increases the odds of survival in one’s attempt to flee tyranny for the freedom of the wilderness. But, this also always runs the risk of increases the chances of aggressive power clashes amongst the members of the fleeing party. Lehi and his group were no different. The increase of their numbers with Ishmael’s family was a boon to their survival. But, it also increased the clash of rebellion amongst Nephi and his brothers and their new family members. Laman and Lemuel, two of Ishmael’s daughters, and two of Ishmael’s sons started to grumble again about the hardships of the wilderness and what they left behind in Jerusalem and desired to return and not go back into the wildnerness. Nephi, ever calm, patient, and wise, yet clearly perturbed by his brothers’ stupidity, warned them that, though they were free to do so if they so wished, doing so would result in their destruction, not only because of the coming Babylonian destruction of the city, but also because of the tyranny that inhabited the people and the land. They would perish spiritually, or morally, as well as physically. Here we see clearly that Nephi was anything but a tyrannical “ruler” over his brothers. He always allowed them their freedom to do as they pleased, but also always sought to guide them by example and persuasion, another hallmark of peaceful anarchy. Peaceful, non-aggressive persuasion by reason and rationality, as well as patience is the guiding principle of inter-human relations in anarchy that allows people to exist peacefully in complete freedom and control over themselves with others who are also in complete freedom and control over themselves. Control over oneself in terms of life decisions concerning what one does to pursue and obtain one’s happiness also entails control over one’s emotions and actions relating to others. It means controlling one’s anger and desire for revenge or covetousness and enviousness. It means choosing NOT to use to aggressive violence against others as well as choosing what one will do with one’s life. How an anarchist society flourishes in peace is working together voluntarily and using discussion and reasoned, evidenced persuasion to entice one’s family members and neighbors to work together toward a common goal, while also granting to each individual their freedom to choose and the corresponding consequences of those choices. Nephi could have easily, with the rest of the members of his entourage sought to over power his rebellious brothers and force them back into the wilderness when they sought to return to Jerusalem once again, especially as it was he, Nephi who very well may have had the armor and sword of Laban with him. But in doing so, he would have endangered everyone, his rebellious brothers and those on his side. Instead he chose the gentle path of reasoned persuasion while also giving his rebellious brothers and their supporters their freedom to chose to do what they please, warning ing them of what would occur with each choice. Of course, regardless of his using reasoned, evidenced persuasion while allowing his brothers and their supporters their freedom to do as they please, his brothers didn’t the warnings he gave of what would happen to them if they returned back to Jerusalem to live. Angered by the natural consequences of the choice they desired, they once again sought to kill their brother, Nephi, tying him up and leaving him in the desert to die.
Free Movement in Anarchy
Where exactly Lehi and his family landed and set up base in the Americas is a much debated topic in Mormon/LDS academic circles. Some say South America, some say Central America, and some even say North America. There’s many that believe evidence points to Nephite society being somewhere in the vicinity of Southern Mexico and Guatemala. Many believe that the future Nephite stronghold of Zarahemla, which was actually founded by another separate group of Jerusalem ex-pats who came over separately and independently from Nephi’s group, unbeknownst to each other (more on them later) was somewhere in the present day states of Chiapas, southern Tabasco, or southern Campeche, given he geography explained in the Book of Mormon itself in relation to Lamanite and Nephite territory. Wherever Lehi and his family landed and the Nephi and his group splintered off from Laman and Lemuel and ended up, it is interesting to consider and debate about but is ultimately of little importance compared to the principles of living and ultimate total storyline found in Book of Mormon. It could have happened anywhere in the world and it would not particularly matter where exactly the story occurred as it’s the principles, particularly the principles of Anarchy that concern us. What’s of importance to us is the anarchic principle of free movement and secession/voluntary separation. Logically, if every human being is their own sovereign and has no right to rule over any other human being, then there is no authority for any individual or group of human beings to deny the rest the right to travel upon and settle the earth, save for the anarchic principle of private property. Private property itself is a hotly debated issue within anarchist circles. Some deny it is an individual right to be able to acquire, control, and own landed property one perpetuity. Others believe such is an individual right. For me as an anarchist, private property it is logical extension of the sovereign individual. I subscribe to the Lockean theories of private property, that if someone moves onto an otherwise unclaimed AND unused piece of land (i.e. un-homesteaded) and mixes their labor with it, it becomes their property to do with as they please according to their happiness, inasmuch as what they do on it does not infringe upon the sovereignty and corresponding rights of other human beings. What I DO NOT subscribe to is the notion that a few individuals, or even many individuals can carve up the world and its lands for themselves in perpetuity to the exclusion of everyone else. You have a right to private landed property. But you DON’T have a right to claim hundreds and thousands of acres of land that you do not need for the survival of yourself and your family, whether you develop/use it or not. You also do not have the authority to prohibit others from traveling across said land in order to get from point A to point B when doing so is required in order to get form point A to point B. In other words, if a certain number of private property owners were to settle and develop their reasonable chunks of land both north and south of the present day fictitious US-Mexico border, these private property owners would not have the right to exclude others north and south of them from traveling upon their cumulative private properties in order to settle north and south of them. Freedom of movement upon the earth is an individual right/authority inherent in the sovereignty of each individual. We all have a right to travel, even upon the private properties of others in order to get from point A to point B. We don’t have a right to harm or otherwise invade said private properties in the process of said right to travel.
In relation to the storyline of the Book of Mormon, as we’ve seen, Lehi and his family choose peaceful secession from Jerusalem when its overwhelmingly aggressive and thus evil inhabitants plot to kill Lehi and perhaps his family. Using their individual sovereignty as individual human beings, they all decide to flee into the wilderness, where freedom and thus risk but also safety dwell. They freely move upon the earth as is their right to do, guided by God, as the story goes, avoiding civilizations in order to avoid the tyranny of laws, i.e. gang rule inherent in them till they come to a land south of Jerusalem, which they call Bountiful due to its bounty of resources necessary for survival. Where Bountiful is, we can’t know for certain, but many LDS scholars have surmised it is somewhere in the shoreline of Oman or Yemen. Looking at present day satellite images of Yemen, there is nowhere on the shoreline that could reasonably be labelled “bountiful” as there is nothing but desert sand. Of course this does not mean 600 BC Yemen looked like present day Yemen. But, in all likeliness, it’s at least reasonable to hypothesize that Lehi and family settled temporarily in the Salalah region of modern Oman, or possibly Dahlkut, as the greenery and otherwise plentiful looking topography provide an image of “bounty,” at least in the present day. Ultimately, though, it’s again of little importance where Bountiful actually was. What’s important is that Lehi and his group exercised their right to free movement and private property by fleeing the tyrannical danger to their lives in Jerusalem and settling and homesteading unclaimed and unused land for a bit in Bountiful, wherever it was, taking advantage of its natural bounty, till they were ready to continue their journey to their promised land across the seas.
A note on Lehi & Patriarchy.
It is no secret that Jewish society, at least at the time of Jesus, was very patriarchal and extremely unequal when it came to biological sex. It’s likely that at the time of Lehi, some 600 years before Christ, Jewish society was little different. Of course, a patriarchal family society where the husband rules as dictator of the family is extremely antithetical to anarchism, and anarchist critics of religion and critics of the Book of Mormon, anarchist or no, would be tempted to attempt to attack the Book of Mormon by attacking Lehi and accusing him of something of ruling over his family with an iron fist because that was how Jewish society was. The truth of the matter is that, as I stated already, it’s not only likely but it’s pretty evident so far that Jewish society at the time of Lehi was ruled over by the iron fists of men, both on the family level and on the societal level. There were queens in Biblical history, but for the most part Israel was ruled over by kings, and even when under the system of judges or when speaking of prophets and such, the majority of the authority figures in the Bible were, for the most part, men. Considering Lehi was one of those prophets preaching repentance to his neighbors and other fellow inhabitants of Jerusalem, who sins included unjustly aggressing against others in the forms of murder, theft, and other such violence against others, all while living under a despotic monarchy and aristocracy, there is no doubt the majority of Jewish society at his time was patriarchal where the husband ruled over the family like petty tyrants. But because Lehi and his existed in this society does not mean, by default, that he too ruled over his family in like tyrannical manner. It’s impossible to know for certain the intricacies of Lehi’s family and each person place and position in it, but there is enough evidence presented in the Book of Mormon itself to suggest that Lehi’s family was quite different and Lehi exercised and interpreted his role as husband and father in a much different manner, dare I say in a manner more akin to anarchy and its principles. This evidence comes in comes most strongly in 1 Nephi chapter 4, which I will discuss momentarily, but even earlier, there is no evidence of coercion exercised by Lehi in abandoning his property in Jerusalem and taking his family into the wilderness to flee the tyranny of Jerusalem in protection of his life and the lives of his family. Indeed, from the general context of the the first 3 chapters of 1 Nephi, as well as chapter 4, it appears that Lehi’s family voluntarily fled with him, having believed his visions of the coming destruction of Jerusalem and having seen his life be threatened by those he preached repentance to and were thus persuaded by reason to voluntarily flee with him, even Laman and Lemuel, though they would likely not have admitted it at times. There is no evidence to suggest Lehi brandished the whip and forced his family into the wilderness while there is every evidence to suggest he pleaded with them to go with him by way of reasoned persuasion. Remember that reasoned persuasion is what makes anarchist society work and remain peaceful. It is a hallmark of anarchist society and anarchist principles. We see this evidence particularly in chapter 4, wherein Lehi’s wife, Saraiah,in an abnormal but entirely reasonable fit of motherly and parental worry complains against Lehi and visions fearing the safety of her sons while they were away in Jerusalem attempting to obtain the brass plates. Chapter verse 2 tells us:
For she had supposed that we had perished in the wilderness; and she also had complained against my father, telling him that he was a visionary man; saying: Behold thou hast led us forth from the land of our inheritance, and my sons are no more, and we perish in the wilderness.
Notice here that Sariah complains that Lehi “led” them forth from the land of their inheritance, their property and wealth in Jerusalem. Not forced or drug or coerced them from it, or committed fraud and lied to trick them to go. No, he “led” them, meaning they appear to have voluntarily followed him. It’s of course completely understandable for Sariah to have a hard time in the wilderness after dwelling in wealth and this comfort and ease in Jerusalem, in addition to fearing the death of her sons after their what was likely weeks, if not months of absence from their camp in the wilderness while on the errand to obtain the brass plates. I’d personally find it odd if one did NOT find occasion to complain of the hardships inherent in being forced, not by one’s family, but by the death threats and threats of a tyrannical government, neighbors, & society to flee one’s home and live in a tent in the deserts of present day Israel/Palestine and Saudi Arabia. But Sariah’s completely reasonable rants against her husband Lehi and their situation, out of the hardships they were all forced to go through by the tyrannical, murderous society they were fleeing and out of fear that her sons were dead, are not evidence that Lehi himself forced her and his family to go against their will, thus being the iron fisted tyrannical patriarch some might be tempted to accuse him of being. Indeed, what we see from Lehi in his response to his wife’s very understandable complaints against him is further evidence that Lehi was not such a iron fisted tyrannical patriarch, for he responds to her in tenderness and further reasoned persuasion, comforting her in her hardships and fear. It says,
4 And it had come to pass that my father spake unto her, saying: I know that I am a visionary man; for if I had not seen the things of God in a vision I should not have known the goodness of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren.
5 But behold, I have obtained a land of promise, in the which things I do rejoice; yea, and I know that the Lord will deliver my sons out of the hands of Laban, and bring them down again unto us in the wilderness.
6 And after this manner of language did my father, Lehi, comfort my mother, Sariah, concerning us, while we journeyed in the wilderness up to the land of Jerusalem, to obtain the record of the Jews.
He comforts her and reminds her of why they left Jerusalem, explaining the reasons again in patience and love, and assuring her that their sons were going to be protected and returned safely to them. And sure enough, return they did, with the plates of brass, the sword of Laban, and Laban’s servant/slave, Zoram, which fully convinced Sariah beyond any doubt of the truth of Lehi’s reasons and purposes for them leaving Jerusalem. Lehi appears to have led and taught his family by way of love, by way of example, by way of reasoned persuasion, much like Nephi did with his brothers Laman and Lemuel and their future wives (as seen in 1 Nephi chapter 7) in their times of complaining, rebellion, and outright attempts to murder him. There is no evidence of him being an iron fisted tyrannical patriarch barking orders and making threats of harm and violence upon his family members if they didn’t obey him and do as he said. There is every evidence to show that Lehi and his family existed with each other harmoniously (inasmuch as Laman and Lemuel weren’t stupidly rebelling) by way of the principles of anarchy, coexisting peacefully by use of reasoned persuasion and choice instead of aggression and violence or threats thereof. Of course, Lehi, like all people that have lived on this world, was, at the end of the day, a fallible human being who did not exist in a cultural vacuum and most assuredly did make mistakes that were likely not in harmony with anarchic living, as do we all. But those times seem to be far and few between when it comes to people like Lehi and Nephi and the types of people and their personalities they represent, i.e. those who seek not for power or to rule over others but seek allow everyone else their personal sovereignty and autonomy by use of patience & reasoned persuasion as their guide to interaction with their fellow human beings, family or not.
The story of Lehi and his family continues after the return of Nephi and his brothers after having obtained the brass plates, returning with them, the sword of Laban, and Laban’s freed slave, Zoram. Nephi and his brothers are sent back to Jerusalem once more to obtain the family of Ishmael, another righteous, non-coercive/aggressive living type of the kind of man Lehi and Nephew are. The purpose of getting Ishmael and his family is several fold. One, as has been discusses, when fleeing tyranny into the wilderness, it’s always a good idea to do so in a group as the wilderness is harsh and just as deadly, though in a much different manner than a tyrannical society. Having numerous hands to help with failing living and the hardships of doings in the wilderness as well as for protection is a blessing. But, they must be fellows that have the same desires to live by the same non-violent, non-aggressive, peaceful living principles of anarchy discussed thus far. Otherwise, your group of freedom seekers fleeing tyranny for the freedom of the wilderness will turn to infighting & aggression. We see this in Lehi and Ishmael’s group. For the other purpose of returning for Ishmael’s family was to obtain spouses for Nephi, his brothers, and his sisters, and Ishmael’s family apparently answered that call as well. Now, we see in 1 Nephi 7 that Nephi and his brothers persuaded Ishmael and his family to join them in the wilderness. By what means he did this, we know not; though suffice to say that Lehi’s family likely knew Ishmael’s family while they still lived in Jerusalem, perhaps might even have been good friends and thus they saw the attempted murders of Lehi by the people of Jerusalem. Ishmael knowing Lehi to be a good man, and Ishmael obviously himself being a similarly good man, saw wisdom in doing Lehi’s group instead of staying behind in tyrannical Jerusalem where what property they had would be taken from them at some point. Whatever means used to persuade them, Ishmael and his family joined and they set off to Lehi’s camp. On their way, Laman and Lemuel got into their old habits and began to influence or join ranks with some of the sons of Ishmael, and they began to harass Nephi and the others about returning to Jerusalem and what they apparently saw as the “good life” there instead of the hardships of the wilderness.
Laman and Lemuel are the types of who are not true believers in the principles of anarchy and thus they are not really the types you want to have along with you in your group if you are fleeing tyranny into the wilderness fro freedom. If possible, it’s best to leave such aggressive types back in the tyrannical society you are fleeing where there fit in better. For otherwise, they will stir up contention and infighting within your wilderness fleeing freedom group and will either seek to take control of the group and rule over its members by aggression and violence or seek to kill off the members of your group. Best leave them back where they belong with the other murderers, thieves, and such types. But, for Nephi, Laman and Lemuel were his brothers, his family, and in the end they left with Lehi and the rest voluntarily, even if it might have been grudgingly. But, since they were not true believers in the principles of anarchism like Lehi, Nephi, Saraiah, Sam, and the sisters, they stirred up contention and sought to kill or rule over the others, especially Nephi. Nephi, upon hearing their unwise desires to return to the good life in Jerusalem along with their wives and some of the sons of Ishmael, attempted to persuade them otherwise by giving warning of the things that would occur them there, i.e. eventually destruction by the tyranny and evil, aggressive living of the people there. But he nevertheless gave them their choice to return if they so pleased, for such was Nephi, a true believer and actually liver of the principles of anarchy and peaceful living. But despite having the freedom to choose to return to Jerusalem if they so pleased, Laman and Lemuel and their gang instead chose to get angry at Nephi’s warnings and not seeking to coercively prevent them from returning. Instead of acting and choosing to return, they decided to attack Nephi, tie him up, and leave him in the desert to die. It’s apparent Laman and Lemuel weren’t really all that keen on having free will, per se; they wanted free will AND the ability to choose their consequences of their choices. They wanted to return to Jerusalem AND live happily ever after with none of the violent destruction bit Nephi warned of. But violence and coercion begets more violence and coercion. If Jerusalem was a violent, aggressive, coercive place, filled with people who lived their lives in such a manner, sooner or later that violence and aggression would be turned upon you at some time, in some way. Laman and Lemuel were the types of wanted to live violently and aggressively but not have it done TO them. They were, in short, “freedom for me but not for thee” types. They wanted to be the rulers, not to be ruled. Thus we can see their decision to not return to Jerusalem but instead get angry at Nephi for essentially telling them they can have their cake but they don’t get to eat it and their attempts to do away with him so as to usurp his position of “leader” in the group and take it by force and murder.
This is not the first time Laman and Lemuel were violent against an innocent Nephi, nor is it the last time they seek to overthrow his natural leadership by way of leading by anarchist principles and kill him. They make a habit of doing this for the rest of the journey and their descendants continue this same habit against Nephi’s descendants. It would have been better for Laman and Lemuel to return to Jerusalem; it would have saved a lot of problems for Nephi and Lehi and the others. But alas, they chose not to go their separate ways but instead to violently conquer. And though they temporarily won a battle, they lost the war. For despite tieng Nephi up and leaving him to die of heat, thirst, and starvation or devourment by some wild animal in the desert, Nephi was able to free himself, bursting the bindings before their very eyes, giving Laman and Lemuel a severe psychological fright and temporary humility check in the process. They at first attempted to lay hands on him again but one of the duaghters of Ishamel, likely Nephi wife or soon to be wife as well as Ishmael’s wife stepped between Nephi and Laman and Lemuel and plead for them to settle down and leave Npehi be. Whether it was seeing they could not kill Nephi or the pleadings of the two women, or perhaps both, Laman and Lemuel had a change of heart and sought Nephi’s forgiveness. And despite their attempted murder, ever the peace lover, Nephi forgives his elder brothers and they all continue on toward Lehi’s camp, where they arrive. What’s of note here is that despite Nephi being perfectly within his rights to defend himself from further attack by Laman and Lemuel, and despite the justice he would have had in killing them right then and there for their attempt to take his life, Nephi chose forgiveness, peace, and love instead of hate fueled revenge. And herein lies another principle of anarchy: forgiveness and second (multiple) chances, giving violent offenders the opportunity to repent and change their ways for the better if at all possible so that their too may also found happiness and meaning in their lives. This does not mean anarchy does not believe in self defense, even unto death, nor in restitution for harms done. These too are also hallmarks of anarchy, and restitution is a key component of repentance and forgiveness. But there is no room for hate fueled revenge in anarchy, for such leads to further aggression, violence, and destruction. Restitution must be made, but hatchets must be buried in the end, or they return to be heaved at each other out of revenge. Forgiveness and second chances are the way of peace and growth.
Commandments
1 Nephi Chapter 8 next takes the reader on a journey with Lehi and an angelic guide through Lehi’s dream concerning the tree of life, the mists of darkness, the great and spacious building, what these all symbolize, and the actions of Lehi’s family members in relation to all these things in his dream. What the dream means from a religious perspective is not so much important for our purposes so much as the principles of anarchy and voluntarism found therein. In short, the tree of life featuring the desirous and precious fruit symbolizes God’s truth, the mists of darkness and filthy river symbolize Satan’s temptations, while the great and spacious building filled with all the mocking people represent the world and misguided humanity putting faith in themselves and/or Satan. What’s significant of our purposes is what the different members of Lehi’s family do in relation to these symbols. In the dream, Lehi partakes of the fruit of the tree of life, God’s truth/wisdom/knowledge, etc, as do Sam, Sariah, and Nephi, whereas Laman and Lemuel do not and choose instead to go over to the mocking crowd in the great and spacious building. Lehi makes his joy and sadness regarding his family members’ choices known, but what’s important is that he makes no attempts to coerce or force his family members to choose one way or the other. They are given their free will to choose according to their own desires, and there’s is no coercion in these choices. This anarchy and voluntarism at it’s basest fundamental foundation, that each individual human being is in charge of their life to the fullest extent possible and as such has the right to do with their life as they wish, so as long as they don’t harm or infringe upon their fellow human being’s equal right(s) to do the same in their lives. God forces no one to heaven nor to hell, nor anywhere else in between. As we’ll see later in the Book of Mormon, forcing human beings to choose one way or the other was Satan’s plan, to force them to do good in life and return to God in the afterlife. But his plan of coercion was destroyed and he and his followers cast out of Heaven for their attempts to coerce their fellow siblings and children of God. If God forces no one to heaven, hell, or anywhere else, and gives to humanity their agency, their free will to choose their lives and what they will be, where does humanity get off breaking from this system and instead erecting governments which are founded upon coercion and violence, i.e. Satan’s way? And why in the world would God suggest or condone such a thing, let alone for the benefit of humankind, as suggested in D&C 134? Such an idea makes no logical sense when considered next to the principles of anarchy and voluntarism found in the Book of Mormon, of individual sovereignty and agency, which book is supposed to be the guide book for our modern times in how to conduct one’s personal life and society as a whole. Surely Lehi cared deeply for his children, Laman and Lemuel, for after all, they were his two eldest sons, his own flesh and blood. Surely he wanted deeply for them to choose good for their lives, both in the dream and in real life. And yet despite his love for them and his yearnings for them to choose the path of righteousness, God’s ways, he, like God, recognized their individual sovereignty and refused to use coercion and violence to force their choice in one direction or another. He used persuasion and long suffering, yet did not coerce them in their choices. This is anarchy and voluntarism: using persuasion and patience, i.e. love in trying to guide other toward good, yet not inhibiting their choices by using coercion or violence of any kind in order to influence or control their lives and the choices they make. Lehi’s dream and its different concepts can easily be applied to the world of anarchy and voluntarism as well. The tree of life can easily represent peace and happiness in life, and the narrow path and rod of iron that leads to the tree in Lehi’s dream can easily represent anarchy and voluntarism and using one’s control over one’s life to choose to do good. And the mists of darkness and great and spacious building filled with its mocking multitude in fancy clothing and such can easily represent violently coercive, centralized government run by human beings, i.e. statism and authoritarianism, and the tyranny, arrogance, and elitist attitudes such always produces in the so-called “ruling class” inherent in government. Indeed, it’s hard not to imagine Washington DC and the state capitols & county and municipal governments with their great and spacious legislatures, courts, and executive mansions. The pomp and ceremony and fancy living fueled by the enslavement of humanity. The arrogance and elitist attitudes of the politicians and high office holding government workers and bureaucrats who openly mock the alleged inferiority of the slave class who work to provide the financing for the fancy, gluttonous, elitist living of the government officials and high level bureaucrats who pretending to look after their best interests & pay them and their “liberty” lip service, all in the name of keeping them hoodwinked as to the reality of their situation in life. There is much going on in Lehi’s dream, but at its core is persuasion & voluntarily choosing to live one’s life a certain way that begets peace and between you and all other human beings within your sphere of contact, whether it be family, friends, neighbors, or community members, as well as prosperity wherein every individual is free to do whatever one must do in order to succeed in life, so long as there is no aggression and harm done to others. This is anarchy. There is no violent coercion, not even out of love for one’s family members, like Lehi and Laman and Lemuel. For violently coercing one to choose good is Satan’s way, as that is what the sought to do to use during the pre-existence’s war in heaven where in he sought God’s glory and power for his purposes and sought to coercive us back to the presents of God by forcing us to choose good in life. God and Christ’s plan was to preserve the agency of humanity so they could choose God’s ways or Satan’s ways, or a mix of the two, for themselves. vv
1st Nephi 12:
In this chapter Nephi sees the future inhabitant of the promised land his family was just taken to, which inhabitants are his descendants. He also see the descendants of his brothers, Laman and Lemuel. He see that for much of their existence, they are engaged in bloody, violent wars against each other, full of wickedness and bloodshed. This continues up until the time when Jesus himself comes to visit the promised land where Nephi and his brothers’ descendants dwelt, when the people learn the ways of Christ and begin living as he lives. And in doing so, they have peace for 4 generations, because those 4 generations are righteous, living after the manner of Christ himself. As has been discussed, the manner of Christ himself is through persuasion and love, i.e, voluntarism and anarchy, where there is no central government or any kind of coercive government as coercion is not Christ’s way and every individual governs themselves. Contrast this with the years and decades of near constant war under the system of coercive, aggressively violent human government, whether under a chieftainship, kingship, or a democratically elected judges system, where someone, Laminate or Nephite, was always trying to obtain the throne of power to rule and oppress, thus causing wars and bloodshed in the process. If there’s no throne of power, there’s no reason to lust after it and thus no cause for wars and bloodshed in order to obtain it. This doesn’t mean in anarchy there wouldn’t be wars, contentions, and bloodshed. Those still may occur. But they would be less likely to occur from not having a violently monopolized throne of power which power lusting people can fight over in order to obtain and wield over everyone else. A stable peace is a lot more likely under anarchy with no thrones of power, where every individual is there own sovereign ruler and the equal rights of everyone to be their own sovereign ruler are respected, like during the times when Christ visited the Americas and instituted his type of peaceful, anarchic society in which no one ruled over others, everyone ruled over themselves and only themselves, and everyone governed themselves with charity, love, humility, persuasion, and patience towards themselves and others. Christ once said, he who takes the sword dies by the sword. This has been translated over time into the phrases “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” I personally believe this is a better translation, for simply having and using a “sword,” i.e. a weapon of self defense is not only justified but encouraged by Christ in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon itself. And it’s simply a logical conclusion by the fact that if one has the right to one’s life and control over it, one has a right to defend it against aggressive attacks using whatever means he/she/they can. Rather, what Christ is trying to say is that he who lives a life of violence will die by violence, for as it says elsewhere in the Book of Mormon and as is seen throughout the Bible. Violence begets violence. Thrones of monopolized violence, i.e. human government, always beget violence both in order to maintain said throne with its monopoly on violence and to protect it from aggressive attacks made in order to obtain and wield it by others. Violence begets violence. Peace begets peace. Christ is the Prince of Peace, therefore his ways must necessarily be those of peace, which excludes aggressively and coercively violent human government using coercion to get people to act how it wants them to act. Nephi sees these realities play out when he see in his dream the violent, war filled societies of his descendants pre-Christ’s visitation where aggressively violent and coercive human government and its bloody game of thrones reigns and the peaceful, prosperous anarchic societies post-Christ’s visitation. Stated later in the book, the Book of Mormon was written for our day in age, to be learned from, to take the mistakes made by its people and learn from them, to take its principles and apply them in our daily lives. What do we see occurring today? Are we living in an age of peace, light, and prosperity? Or are we living in a time of war and bloodshed where societies are swirled around with darkness and cold, hard hearts, filled with hatred, revenge, greed & lust for power, oppression, and strong desires to control others? The answer is obvious. And it just so happens that we too in our war and violence filled modern age STILL, like idiots, insist on having an inherently aggressive and violent system of aggressively violent human government. Is it coincidence that the ancient Nephites insisted on maintaining an aggressively violent human government and were destroyed by evil, violently aggressive others who tried to take control of that throne of power and wild it for their own benefit and rule over the rest, thus causing constant war and bloodshed, which eventually destroyed them outright? Is it coincidence that we today still insist on maintaining said aggressively violent and coercive human government with its monopoly on power & violence, where nations are fighting each other for control of those thrones of power over others in a final battle Royale to control the whole world, and we are thus constantly at war around the world as the US tries to maintain its status as world hegemon from attacks from other powerful nations such as Russia and China seeking that throne of power? Is it all just coincidence? I think not. The message is perfectly clear: Live by violence, be destroyed by violence. Live by peace, live on and prosper by peace. And this only makes logical sense; if you live a life of stealing from others and kidnapping, torturing, murdering, or otherwise controlling them as slaves, of course they are going to get angry and want revenge, which will kick off even more violence. And they’ll likely go overboard is meeting out justice, slaughtering and harming the families of those who first harmed them, which will make any surviving family members or friends want their own retribution, and so on and so on it goes. Whereas, under peaceful voluntarism and anarchy, what room is their for retribution if violence and compulsion are not used in the first place and every individual is treated as the sovereign over their own lives that they are? Sure, there may still be evil people who try to steal, murder, kidnap, torture, and otherwise aggress, but those incidents would be isolated compared to a system like we have today where our human government is built upon and owes its survival to those very aggressions against others and thus those aggressions occur everywhere every single day and spread the world over like a wildfire? Violent aggression under voluntarism and anarchy would be infinitely less likely and more manageable than under a system of human government like we have right now where aggression is so rampant it occurs several times each day. I believe this is the most important message to be taken from 1st Nephi 12.
1 Nephi 13-14: Two Churches; the Church of God and the Great & Abominable Church of the Devil.
In chapter 13, Nephi is caught up in a vision with an angel which shows him the promised land, the Americas, and his people and their descendants on that land, the land of the Americas. The vision also shows him the gentiles, both in the old world and in the new, i.e. Europe and their American colonization, in the very least. He sees the formation amongst the Gentile nations of a “church,” a “great and abominable church,” which is the Devil’s Church. He sees the Devil’s Church oppressive the saints and followers of God, killing them, enslaving them, torturing them, stealing from them, murdering them, etc. Many LDS scriptorians and theorists have posited that this so-called “Great and Abominable Church of the Devil” is the Catholic Church. Perhaps so, perhaps not. I have already discussed what I believe this “Devil’s Church” to be: violently aggressive and coercive human government and any other entity that forms underneath it and uses aggression, oppression, and their tools of murder, theft, torture, etc. But it’s of interest to consider the role of the Catholic Church and indeed the role of organized, established religion in general in this story and how it is used by human government to achieve its ends and maintain its power. Christianity is of course not the sole religion the earth has known, nor is it the oldest, unless one subscribes to the LDS teachings of the origins of man and religion. Those beliefs and ideas aside, mainstream Christianity as we know it today, in the view of most mainstream Christians and religious historians, began with the ministry of Christ on earth, which began in his early years of 12 up to his 33rd year of life. The early Christian church after the time of Christ was guided by his 12 Apostles, while they lived. These early Christians and their church where persecuted by the Roman government, which was officially Pagan, until it was adopted by the Roman Empire as its official state religion sometime in the 300s AD after the Roman emperor Constantine converted. To be fair, under Constantine, there was something approaching freedom of religion and he himself did not make Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. But his conversion and his roles in major Christian councils got the ball rolling. Constantine was influential in the organizing the council of Nicaea, which produced the Nicene Creed professed by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches within Christianity. Whatever the professed Christian beliefs within the Nicene Creed, we see here an early example of the state, the human government of the then most powerful government of the then most powerful empire inserting itself into Christianity and playing a role in deciding the beliefs of that religion. Christianity may not have been the official state religion of Rome at that time, but to have the head of the government of a major world power like Rome playing a significant role in deciding the beliefs of a religion that would soon become the state religion of Rome and thereafter one of the most significantly dominant religions throughout the history of the world, this is an important matter to consider. Along with the role of human government in the compilation and translation of the Bible, especially the English King James Bible, but also including the Latin Bible, Constantine’s role in the Council of Nicaea provides us with a glimpse at the role of human government in forming Christianity for its own purposes in building up and maintaining its own power to rule over humanity. And herein we see Christianity’s role, in the form of state churches, whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, as a tool within the Church of the Devil, to be used by the Church the Devil in the form of actual “churches” of the state. Established, state churches have been a norm throughout the history of Europe, where the Catholic Church maintained its dominance over much of the Western Europe and their American and other colonies outside Europe for much of the last 2 centuries, that is until the formation of the Protestant churches beginning in the early 1500s. Even after Henry VIII, “King” of England separated his kingdom from the Holy Roman Empire over his dissolution of his marriage, he still made sure to establish his own version of the Catholic Church, the Church of England, as the official state church and religion of England, with himself as its head. And even when the Puritanical and other dissident Christian sects like the Presbyterians of Scotland or others in England separated from the Church of England, they still made sure to establish themselves as the new state churches, or at least try to do so. True freedom of religion, or “religious toleration” as it was known in the 1600s, was rare, if not non-existent. And it had few supporters. Every sect wanted tolerance for themselves, but were happy to erect themselves as the official church and start persecuting everyone else. The Puritans of New England were notorious for their persecutions of others who believed and practiced Christianity differently from them. The Presbyterians of Scotland and England were no different, as was the Church of England, where Catholicism was banned and Catholics persecuted heavily under the reign of King James in the late 1500s and early 1600s. Indeed, it was the persecutions of the Puritans by the Church of England and thus the government of England that drove them first to the Netherlands, then finally to the American east coast where they formed the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. And it was from their persecutions of New Lights like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson that drove them from the colony, leading Roger Williams to form the colony of Rhode Island where he established religion freedom for Christians. It wasn’t until the American Revolution, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights in the latter 1700s that “freedom of religion” and “separation of church and state” as we know it was born. But even then, there has never truly been a full separation of the religion and the state, though the situation of disestablishment that was a result of the American Constitution is a much preferable situation to the established churches of pre-American Revolution Europe. There is much history in this story of the relationship between government and religion, and much that could be said, but suffice it to say here that, as regards 1 Nephi 13, I believe trying to pinpoint one “Christian church” or one “world religion” or spiritual, deistic belief as the “Church of the Devil” is the wrong way to approach it. Rather, I believe the more appropriate and logical approach to interpreting who and what exactly the “Church of Devil” is to view spiritual, deistic notions of “religions” and their “churches” as tools of that great “Church of the Devil” and instead see the “Church of the Devil” as anything that practices the WAYS of the devil, whatever those entities may be. And violently aggressive, coercive human government in which one group of people rule over their fellow human beings in violent power fits that description perfectly, using the methods and ways of Satan (murder, theft, torture, tyranny, oppression, lying, cheating/fraud, imprisonment, and all other forms of aggression) to not only gain and maintain their power, but fund it as well. In short, I believe the Church of the Devil as mentioned in 1 Nephi 13 is not a “church,” per se, or not only a “church,” but rather is whatever entities practice these methods and means of Satan, including human governments and their established, state churches. The Catholic Church was just ONE of these established churches used by human government to maintain its power over humanity, using it to fund and maintain its existence for so those who controlled that throne of power and violence could enrich themselves at the slavish expense of everyone else. This does not mean that the Catholic Church as a whole, including all its beliefs and its adherents, or any specific sect of Christianity or any other religion is in totality of the Devil and thus wholly Satanic. There are many good people who are adherents and practitioners of Catholicism and of every other world religion. It means, rather, that those entities and their status throughout the world have been and still are used by human governments and other tyrants to oppress and build up and maintain their own power as slave masters and rulers over their fellow human beings. How they have been used and how they are still used, as tools of the truly Satanic, has changed and will continue to change throughout history. They are not inherently evil or Satanic; rather, they are tools of power used by the Satanic, the tyrants and slavers of the world, to achieve their ends of obtaining violent power and wealth at the expense of others. Indeed, verse 5 of 1 Nephi 13 describes the “Great and Abominable Church,” the “Church of the Devil,” as that
which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
Verse 8 and 9 continue on, further describing the motives of the Church of the Devil:
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.
9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.
Human government definitely matches that description. Remember Christ’s temptations by the Devil in the New Testament. Satan offered Christ power via control over all the kingdoms of the world and thus its wealth if he Christ would submit to Satan. Christ wisely turned him down, for a multitude of reasons. But we see that obtaining control over humanity and its kingdoms and thus its wealth is a hallmark of Satan, the Devil, whereas Christ sought no such power, but rather, to saver humanity from such tyranny through his better, higher ways, the individually liberating peace and prosperity of Anarchy and Voluntarism. For if there is a “Church of the Devil,” and that “Church” includes human government and their lesser entities they use to practice the ways of Satan, including religious “churches,” established or no, there must necessarily be a “Church of God.” And if there is a Church of God,” it must necessarily be the exact opposite of the Church of the Devil. And if the Church of the Devil includes human government, the Church of God must necessarily be the absence of human government, AKA “Anarchy.” Indeed, 1 Nephi 14 does go on to mentioned that there are only 2 churches, the Church of God and the Church of the Evil. But before devling further into this, a quick note on the role of the Catholic Church in the formation of the Bible and 1st Nephi 13: 20-42.
1st Nephi 13:20 mentions a book, and that that book would be brought over with the Gentiles, the Europeans, to the Americas as they colonized the Americas. That book is taken to be the Bible, especially the King James Bible. 1 Nephi 13:23 describes it as
a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.
The angel continues to describe to Nephi concerning the Bible spread amongst the Gentiles in the old and new worlds that it would be corrupted by the Great and Abominable Church; the verses say:
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles according to the truth which is in God.
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
29 And after these plain and precious things were ataken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.
Again, whatever exactly the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil refers to specifically, the role of the Catholic Church in the formation of Christian orthodoxy, doctrine, and canon is entirely relevant here. We’ve discussed Constantine and the Nicene Creed briefly, but of equal importance were the later establishment of the Catholic Church as the official state church/religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD and the subsequent Council of Rome in 382 AD wherein the books of the Bible were complied to what we now know them as today. All of these events, the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the Council of Rome, the Council of Nicene involved state officials of the most powerful imperial government of the western world of that time playing a heavy role in deciding what would be the beliefs and scriptures of that new state religion. Is it at all beyond the imagination to speculate that what they compiled as the doctrines and canon of this new imperial religion were principles and ideas that aided in building up their own power and wealth via their positions in human AND church government, positions that placed them in power and “authority” over the rest of humanity, funding those positions of power via theft, murder, and torture of their fellow human beings? After all, if we remember, wealth, power, and the praise of the world are the aims of the Church of the Devil, according to 1 Nephi 13. It’s only logical that those who composed that Church of the Devil would mold their new imperial, soon to be world religion and its doctrines and scriptural canon, the Catholic Church, the Bible, and the subsequent established state churches/religions, so as to maintain and grow their positions of power to rule over others, in order to deceive them into supporting their own enslavement to the powers that be in the Church of the Devil as “God’s will,” divine right to rule by kings, parliaments, presidents, and governments, etc. And this is exactly what 1 Nephi 13 20-42 explains. The Bible was corrupted so as to take out and only include those things that would allow the rulers in the Church of the Devil, AKA human government and its lesser entities like established churches, to maintain & grow their positions of power and wealth, and keep all those they stole and coerced that wealth and power from under their control and power. We can harken back to the temptations of Christ on the mount, where Satan, the Devil, tempts Jesus by offering him control over the earthly powers and kingdoms, with all the riches & glory of the world that come with such power, and Jesus refuses said temptation knowing who he is, that worlds without number he has helped create with the God, the Father, including ours, and that he will stand with the Father at his right hand again after his earthly ministry. The Father and premarital Jesus, as well as resurrected Jesus have true power, i.e. knowledge; they don’t know the paltry, false power of aggressive coercion that constitutes & runs the kingdoms of the world.
The Bible has much truth still to be found in it. Certain truths were removed, replaced by the teachings of fallen, fallible flesh and humanity or with outright lies of Satan himself. But kernels of truth can still be found in it. However, the fact remains that it was complied by a state church, formerly pagan, and the government of the western world’s most powerful imperial power and used in order to grow their imperial power over more peoples of the earth and maintain that power over them to plunder, enslave, and oppress them for the benefit of those in power. It only makes sense there would thus be much falsehood or useless things of men included in the text as well. Plus, not only was it’s compilation by a state government problematic and suspect, but so too is the translation of that compilation into English at the hands of the government of what would not much later become the world’s s first truly global hegemon, Great Britain. And mind you, this was a translation effort instigated and controlled by King James 1, who believed he had a divine right to rule as king, that his word was, in essence, law. And as head of the Church of England, the official state religion of the then burgeoning English empire, it was entirely in his incentive to make sure the Bible was translated in language so as to prop up his and his earthly kingdom and his Protestant Church’s power over that of of versions of Christianity, like the Catholic Church. On all levels, at the hands of a variety of tyrants ruling over the different locations of the Church of the Devil, i.e. the nation states and kingdoms, the Bible must be interpreted knowing it was compiled, written, and translated by these tyrants in a manner that corrupted it on purpose so as to ensure and grow their own slave based power. It is without a doubt that they were behind including Romans 13 with its translations of slavish “obedience” to earthly powers in the form of church and state.
Thus, in the eyes of the Mormons, at least, the need for the Book of Mormon, to clarify and reveal those truths taken from the Bible by conspiring men intent on power, wealth, glory, and fine things, the goals of the Church of the Devil. Though it must be remembered that though the Book of Mormon may contain truths stripped from the Bible, it to was still written, compiled, and translated by fallible human beings not born in cultural vacuums and thus may itself also contain errors or things of man. After all, the Book of Mormon was written by fallible men about their fallible human societies, filled with people who were descended from Jews and their Jewish line of mostly wicked, tyrannical kings/monarchs dating back hundreds of years, who then mixed with tribal and monarchical societies in the Americas where higher classes ruled over lower classes in social system with a aristocrat-vassal relationship, everyone having their place in such a system. It’s little wonder statism found its way into their societies and thus into the history of the Book of Mormon peoples. But, still, as we have seen thus far and as we will continue to see, despite this fleshly insistence on statism found in the Book of Mormon societies, the teachings of Christ and his prophets in the Book of Mormon societies work toward destroying the statism of flesh and men, putting its foundations heavily in anarchy and voluntarism.
1 Nephi 14: The Church of the Devil shall have dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.
Behold there are save atwo churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother is the church of the cdevil; wherefore, dwhoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ewhore of all the earth.
11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many awaters; and she had dominion over ball the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.
12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were afew, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to afight against the Lamb of God.
The Church of the Devil is human government built on aggressive coercion, regardless of what form it may take. It sits on the many waters, meaning it is present on every continent, and it has dominion/control over all the nations and peoples of the world. And the followers of the Church of Christ, anarchy and voluntarism based out of love, charity, persuasion, and patience, are few in number because the vast majority of the human population, under the control of the Church of the Devil, AKA government, are wicked and filled with abominations, brainwashed as they are by the propaganda of the governments they are for ed to live under. They members of the Church of Christ, Anarchy/Voluntarism, also are upon the many continents and in the many nations but they are few in number and have little power in those nations unlike the Church of the Devil, AKA the State. The state, AKA the Church of the Devil, fights against those who do not believe in aggressive coercion and would eradicate it and bring freedom to the individual soul, AKA the members of the Church of Christ. It targets them to imprison them and enslave them, or murder them if possible because they are a challenge to their power structure and pretend authority, the more vocal and prominent they get. There shall be many wars as a result of the evil desire for control over the world and its peoples by the governments of the world under the control of the Church of the Devil. They shall wage many wars upon their own citizens and each other, and upon those anarchists, voluntarists, and anti-statists who follow the ways of Christ and seek to undo the state, who will try to bully them into compliance, arresting them on trumped up, fake charges, imprisoning them on made up charges of violating made up “laws,” or even murdering them by sending in SWAT teams guns a blazing to arrest them for fake “crimes.”
1 Nephi 15: How to best resolve disputes under anarchy.
Nephi in chapter 15 has a discussion with his brothers, Laman and Lemuel over the meaning of some of the things their father Lehi told them concerning his visions and prophecies concerning the House of Israel, the Jews, Lehi’s descendants, and the Gentiles all being made one in Christ in the latter days through the efforts of the Gentiles. Chapter 15 mostly focuses on spiritual or religious matters, but there are a few nuggets of anarchism to be within. 1 concerns the differences in personality between Nephi and his brothers, Laman and Lemuel. Laman and Lemuel are described as being in disputation with each other over the meaning of their father’s visions, arguing, fighting. Nephi calmly comes in and kindly explains to them the meaning of their father’s visions, pacifying their anger and dispute by calmly reasoning with them. Nephi didn’t come in and start fighting with them verbally over their father’s visions’ meanings, joining the disputation. He didn’t come in and start dictating to them that they shut and listen to him as he tells them how it is. He exercises patience and kindly love and patiently and lovingly takes time to help them understand the meanings of the visions and why they are important. He didn’t act like an arrogant ruler over them. He acted as their teacher or tutor, instructing them and guiding them together with him as he walked them all through the interpretations. In anarchy, since everyone is in charge of their own selves and they must thus protect themselves or band together with other willing individuals to protect each other mutually, having no one but themselves to rely upon for protection, it is best and most logical to keep the disputations among the individual sovereigns in an anarchic society to a minimum, using, as Nephi, patient, kind, logical reasoning & explanation, respecting each other individual instead of heavy handed, arrogant aggression or even just violence from the get go in an attempt to force your way on to others. Solving disputes via logical, reasoned discussions and coming to mutually agreeable solutions to disputations under anarchy is paramount to such an anarchic society succeeding and not falling into tribal warfare or blood feuds. Being like Nephi and helping to solve a dispute in an anarchic society through mediation and calm, patient, kind reasoned discussion with all parties concerned is how to keep the peace under anarchy. Otherwise, the use of anger, revenge, hatred, and their resulting aggressions results in anything but peace, where violence begets violence and all the sudden groups start forming into states with governments again and the process of spreading tyranny & enslavement starts anew.
So, in all your dealings and disputations with other sovereign individuals, remember to keep emotion as calm as possible and to rely on patient, kind, reasoned explanation and instruction instead of arrogant and heavy handed coercion or argumentation wherein each side gets riled up and the potential for violence breaking out increases.
Chapter 15 also discusses the wisdom and justice in separating the “wicked,” I.e. those who commit aggressions upon others by murdering, stealing, enslaving, etc., from the righteous, those who live an anarchic life wherein they respect the autonomy and accompanying rights of each individual they come in contact with.
To allow the aggressors in life to dwell among and harm/aggress upon the the non-aggressors would be to destroy the non-aggressors at the hands of the aggressors. So, it is entirely justified for an anarchic society to separate out from among them those who aggress, the “wicked” and send them away and keep them out of said anarchic society while they remain in their aggression. This does not necessarily mean such an anarchic society can push aggressors out from them among them completely as a “community.” Rather, it means, that sovereign individuals can justly keep aggressors from coming on to their individual property, and every individual can do the same so that the effect is that the aggressors among them are limited in their travels to their own individual property. The non-aggressors would not necessarily be justified in stealing the property of an aggressor and kicking him out of the area completely…if the just payment in restitution for the aggression amounted to such, it could happen, but typically, aggressors would simply be limited to their own property and nowhere else in an anarchic society of property owning, sovereign individuals. For example, say, Person A owns 4 acres of land and he steals 3 pigs from his neighbor, Person B. Person B and his fellow neighbors would not be justified in stealing Person A’s land completely and exiling him from the area and his land in compensation for the 3 pigs. But they would be justified in prohibiting Person A from going anywhere on their properties, shining him as it were for his aggression, so that the was limited solely to his own property, keeping the aggressor separate from the non-aggressors. In short, chapter 15 talks about the necessity and justness in giving the righteous, non-aggressors their own properties separate from the properties given to the wicked aggressors. How this plays out in an anarchic society, there are multiple scenarios. But non-aggressors having the right and authority to not allow aggressors, even by use of defensive violence, onto their properties is an important part of maintaining peace and justice in an anarchic society. Whether this means that unrepentant aggressors have their propertied taken in recompense for their many aggressions by the victims of said aggressions as compensation and are exiled as outlaws or whether it means aggressors simply are not allowed on the property of peaceful people and may be forcefully removed if they trespass with intent to aggress, either way, the wicked shall be separated from the righteous, or in other words, the aggressors shall be separated from the peaceful. The two groups, the permanently peaceful and the continuously unrepentant aggressors cannot live together in peace, since it’s the latter’s intent to destroy that peace by their aggressions. However it plays out in an anarchist society, the notion that wicked aggressors and righteous peaceful livers cannot long dwell together and maintain peace; and as such, the peaceful are fully within their rights to keep aggressors from their properties. And chapter 15 verifies this fact of anarchic living.
1 Nephi 16-17: The peaceful prosper:
Chapters 16-17 cover the journey of Lehi and his family from a place called the Valley of Lemuel down south and eastward to a place called Bountiful. It’s been hypothesized by Mormon scholars and others that that went from Jerusalem down into modern day Saudi Arabia , following the coast of the Gulf of Aqaba down to the area of Sharma where the Gulf of Aqaba turns into the Red Sea. Sharma has been hypothesized by Mormon scholars and others to be the Shazer mentioned in Chapter 16, while the city of Nahom, where Ishmael dies and is buried, is guessed to around the town of Najran, north of Sana’a Saudi Arabia. From there, Lehi and his family jounrney eastward till they reach a land they call Bountiful, full of wild fruits and honey and other plenty for food and necessities bordering the vast Arabian Sea. Mormon scholars again hypothesis that Bountiful might have been on the modern border of Yemen and Oman where there is much green and plenty. Indeed, Lehi’s family calls the vast ocean they see at Bountiful “Irreantum,” meaning many waters. It’s not that far of a stretch to find similarities between Irreantum and Arabian Sea. Where these locations took places ultimately matters not for our purposes. What matters is that during the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful down the Saudi Arabian peninsula, which took them 8 years, Lehi and his family endured much hardships as is to be expected journeying on foot with old and young in such a large group. They had to find food along the way, and Chatper 16 details this struggle to find food. They had to have faith to know which way to go on their journeys. When they had faith and were peaceful, they succeeded in their journey. And it was when they did not have faith and where stirred up to anger and frustration and fighting amongst each other by their sufferings and hardships in traveling through a hot desert with no promise of daily food, their progress was held up. Indeed, at one point Laman and Lemuel sought again to kill their father, Lehi and their brother Nephi and return to Jerusalem, even as far down as Nahom down on the South Western part of Saudi Arabia. It would have been quite the journey back for them alone. And they were traveling through already inhabited areas, inhabited by what we call today Arabs, the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael and Hagar, though Islam had yet to be created as a religion. Whether these Arabian tribes and settlements were friendly to Jews or just outsiders or not is not detailed in the story, but there is one hint that perhaps some areas where not as safe as others during the journey to Bountiful as God did not permit them to light fires and thus they were made to eat raw meat. It’s a logical conclusion that this was for the safety of the group so as not to be spotted by possible native or other traveling aggressors who would harm Lehi and his group and rob or kill them. Either way, the Anarchic take away from these two few chapters of 1 Nephi 15-17 is that, though hardships still occur and handwork is still necessitated in order to survive and progress, progress and success through hard work occur much more easily through peace and peaceful living amongst others. Perhaps Lehi and his family mingled with the locals of the areas they traveled through down the Arabian peninsula, while perhaps they took more solitary, hidden, less traveled routes. It’s a reasonable conclusions that they had to mingle with the locals sometimes in order to obtain supplies and food, and for that they had to remain peaceful and respectful and not behave as aggressors intent on harm. Aggressive violence begets violence, while peace most of the time tends to beget peace. The peaceful living of anarchy, in which each individual recognizes, respects, and ensures the autonomy and sovereignty of every other individual, where there is no aggressions such as murder, theft, rape, kidnap, torture, war, and other forms of violent aggression, ensures the greatest possible chance of the great possible progress and success for every individual according to their efforts and the help they receive from others. In order to progress and succeed peacefully along their journey to Bountiful, and experience the least amount of troubles, amongst themselves or amongst the local inhabitants of the areas they traveled through, Lehi and his his family had to remain peaceful amongst each other and amongst those they met along the way. And when they weren’t peaceful, and tried to harm each other, their progress was halted. The peaceful living of anarchy brings the greatest chances of successful progress for all living in a society together, however great or small. Peaceful cooperative, living that seeks to solve problems instead of just whine, complain, & argue/fight about hardships is much more successful and progressive. Nephi, instead of whining and complaining as a victim like his brothers and even his father when his bow broke, Nephi being one of the prime hunters or food finders of the group, and instead of joining in the fighting and arguing with his brothers about whose fault it was the bow broke, complaining and doing nothing like his brothers, he got right to it and solved the problem by building a new bow and more arrows and then asking his father where he should go to find food. Imagine how much time, heart ache, and energy they could have saved had Nephi’s brothers, instead of whining, complaining and harassing Nephi, as if breaking his bow was his fault, and instead joined together with Nephi to mutually build new bows and arrows for them all and used their combined strength to not only fashion in those new hunting tools, but go out and look for food! The peaceful, cooperative living most possible under anarchy, where in different sovereign individuals of a group join together to solve a group problem brings much more successful progress than fighting amongst each other, blaming each other, complaining against each other, and in the process doing nothing and achieving nothing. Nephi didn’t seek to compel his complaining and fighting brothers to help him; he didn’t seek to compel anyone in his family group to do anything. He simply took the initiative and, choosing not to engage in the fighting & complaining of his brothers, defending himself against their verbal attacks against him for breaking his bow, he went and made a new bow and asked his father for instructions on where to hunt. Had one person been in a dictatorial position and tried to compel the family in one way or another, especially if it had been Laman and or Lemuel who had tried to seize control of the family, as they had on many occasions, more fighting and complaining would have broken out and their survival as a whole group would have been in danger. If Laman and Lemuel had had their way, they would have killed Lehi and Nephi, possibly others, and likely have gotten lost in the Arabian desert wilderness and died from lack of food and supplies or possibly from a deadly run in with the local Arab peoples. It was the anarchic and peaceful individual sovereignty and initiative of Nephi in taking the lead over his own actions in building the bow and arrows and asking his father for directions on where to hunt that saved the family. These are the primary anarchic takeaway from these chapters.
One final take away from Chapter 17. If the peaceful and righteous prosper, the wicked and aggressive are destroyed and driven to and fro in the end when they are ripe in in their iniquity. What iniquity is this? Nephi gives an example of the the iniquity found in the people of Jerusalem, in his brothers, and in the inhabitants of the land of Palestine that the Hebrews, or the people of Israel, drove out of the land that they might inhabit it: they were all murders or murderers in their hearts. The people of Jerusalem murder the innocent, including trying to take Lehi’s life for his calling them to repentance. They sought the life of Nephi and his brothers on several occasions when they returned to obtain the Brass Plates from Laban. So much did the people of Jerusalem seek the innocent lives of Lehi and his family, they had to flee. The people of Jerusalem, murderers and thieves, and worshippers off themselves and other men, were ripe in their iniquity, having ignored the calls to repentance of several prophets, including Jeremiah, Lehi, and others. They even tried to murder these prophets for their calls to repentance and peaceful living. So many chances they had been given and so many times had they rejected peaceful, righteous living and continued in their murders, thievery, and other iniquities, that God took his protection from them and allowed them to be driven from the land by the Babylonians, which Lehi took his family to flee from so that they might not fall victim to the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and be killed or carried off as captives. Just the wicked, aggressive people of Jerusalem, who lived under an aggressive, slavish monarchy, were driven from the land do to their murders, theft, and other evil practices, so to were the inhabitants of the land prior to the arrival of the people of Israel driven from the land as well when they were ripe in their iniquity, their murders, thievery, and aggressive, oppressive living and treatment of others. We see this same pattern play out throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The peaceful and righteous prosper in the choice places of the world while the wicked and aggressive fail and are destroyed, either destroying themselves by infighting and civil war or being destroyed by some outer invader who clears them from the choice land to make way for a new group of righteous and peaceful inhabitants. This logic follows that of 1 Nephi Chapter 15, where the wicked and the righteous must necessarily be separated from each other as there cannot long be peace where unrepentant aggressors dwell among the righteous, for the former will enslave or murder the latter. The wicked, unrepentant aggressors must be cleared from the land for the peaceful and righteous to be able to prosper. One would not permit a neighbor who continuously attempted to murder him/her and steal his/her property to remain in the vicinity. Either he would kill said repeated attempted murderer and thief in self defense or drive him from the vicinity in self defense, preventing further murder and theft attempts, or place his in some kind of detention area away from peaceful society until he/she changed his/her ways. And to do so in an anarchic society, killing said aggressive neighbor in self defense, detaining him away from society in some kind of prison, or driving him from the area would be justified, as that neighbor is a repeated attempted murderer and thief. It is no different here regarding what is being described in Chapter 17 of 1 Nephi regarding the people of Israel driving the wicked inhabitants of Palestine from the area, and the Babylonians driving the wicked people of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah from the same land when they were ripe in their iniquity as aggressors, murderers, and thieves. The only issue I personally find with this is the children of said societies ripe in their iniquity. Children cannot be held accountable for the sins of their parents and are innocent. It cannot be permissible, especially to a perfectly just and merciful God, to destroy them as they are innocent. But it also isn’t fair to destroy their wicked parents and leave them orphaned, for they will not understand why their parents were killed or destroyed. In my personal opinion, if a land must be cleansed of wicked, aggressive inhabitants to make way for a righteous, peaceful people, the most just and merciful way would be to drive the wicked people from the area short of actually killing them and leaving the innocent children orphaned. This is what makes the story of Lehi and his family all the more anarchic. They chose the peaceful option of fleeing tyranny and finding a new place where they could go and find uninhabited land and homestead it and make it their through their labor instead of driving other inhabitants off their land to make it their own. Personally, I believe this is what the Book of Mormon is trying to teach us, that there is a better way to obtain a land for one’s inheritance than to chose a place already inhabited and clearing off those original inhabitants by means of violence, even if such violence might be justified violence. The Book of rMormon is full of this story, of the oppressed and righteous fleeing tyranny for a better, freer place, and finding a land uninhabited and making it their own instead of finding an already inhabited place and driving off the original inhabitants. The former is the more peaceful, anarchic route. Nevertheless, anarchy allows defensive violence, though it should always be a last result if at all possible. For once the killing starts, even if justified, it’s hard a cycle to stop. Best to avoid a fight and violence if at all possible and best to flee tyranny and find a new uninhabited place to make one’s own if at all possible.
The main anarchic takeaway from 1 Nephi Chapter 19 is once again, that the world is an inheritance for all humanity, God’s children, and as such, every individual and group of individuals has a right to travel the world and settle upon it as their property by working the land and developing it. For this is what Lehi and his family do, first in the land of Bountiful in the Old World, partaking of the natural fruits, meat from local animals, and naturally occurring ore and timber used to build the boat the sailed upon over the Pacific Ocean to the Promised Land in the Americas. They also sowed seeds which they had brought with them from Jerusalem in order to feed themselves. There was none and nothing to prohibit them from partaking of the natural plenty the world has to offer, as was their right as individuals, including claiming small areas of land they worked as their property to sustain, house, and protect themselves. In short, they homesteaded their plots of land in Bountiful and made it their own. But Bountiful not being their primary, final destination, Lehi and his family continued across the Pacific Ocean to the Americas, their “Promised Land,” and once again homesteaded their plots of land, mixing their labor with the land by planting seeds and building shelters, and partaking of the naturally occurring various provisions already there to build their new life in their new home. The earth belongs to each and every individual human being born on it as their birthright, and as such, they have a right to live upon it and travel upon it according to their desires, wherever they have a desire to go and visit or settle. They have a right to claim a small portion of the earth for their survival and prosperity in their life. This is part of their right to life. Property is inherent in one’s right to life, for without it, one cannot be said to have a right to life for without private, individual property one cannot live. One has a natural right, by way of his/her existence, to seek out a parcel of land to use for one’s survival and prosperity by mixing his/her labor with it and improving it so that it will sustain them in their life by growing crops, hunting, building shelter, and doing other things with the land to prosper. No individual or group of them has a right, however, to claim up vast swaths of land for the sake of having land that is not used for ones survival, to the exclusion of all others, so that some are left with vast swaths of land while the rest are left with none. This natural and logical prohibition on claiming up vast swaths of land to the exclusion of all others so that no land is left for the rest of humanity applies to governments, states, and all manner of other forms of societies. The modern nation state with it notion of “state property,” territories and borders, and passports and visas required for entrance are tyrannical, wicked, evil practices of greedy, cruel, groups of individuals carving up vast swaths of land to the exclusion of all others so that a few have access to and benefit from those vast swaths of land while the rest are excluded and left without. This evil practice denies the rest of excluded and property deprived humanity their right to life and property and, if continued, will one day account for the wickedness and iniquity of any “nation” that has become ripe in their iniquity and what they have been given by God will be taken from them due to their being ripe in their iniquity. For if groups of humanity deny others their right to travel freely upon the earth and make a small part of it their own for their own sustenance and prosperity, they are essentially signing that individuals death warrant, committing murder in their hearts, enslaving them by denying them their rights to travel and honestly acquire an unused AND unclaimed piece of land to sustain themselves with. Those who deny individuals their right to travel freely and settle upon their chosen section of the earth are making war upon those individuals, aggressing upon them, and as such those aggressed upon individuals have a right to defend themselves from those aggressing upon them. Just as Lehi and his family had the right to travel to the Promised Land and make their home in a small section of it, so to did European settlers have a right to come to the New World and do the same, and the native American tribes had no right to claim up two entire continents to the exclusion of all others and deny European settlers from settling on small sections of North and South America. However, European settlers had no right to settle upon clearly occupied and used/developed territory and do the exact same thing that the Native tribes were trying to do, claim up vast swaths of the entire continents as their own to the exclusion and genocide of the native inhabitants. There was plenty of land and resources to go around for all. Both sides were wrong in purging the other from the land and warring with each other over what amounted to plenty for all.
1 Nephi 18:
One main take away in terms of anarchism and voluntarism from this chapter relates to Nephi allowing his brothers to aggress upon him and tie him up while on the boat. Nephi could have most assuredly defended himself against his brothers aggression towards him in tying him up on the ship. Not only would he have been perfectly entitled to by right of self defense, extending from his right to the property of his person, but he could have easily defeated or neutralized their threat against him, as was demonstrated in just the chapter before when they tried to lay hands upon him while he was building the boat and chastising them for their sloth and mockery of his efforts. Indeed, in chapter 17, he says to them, don’t lay a finger on me for whosever does so will wither and die, and to show forth his power over them, power from God, he reaches forth and shocks them after they attempted to lay hands on him. Again, whether he really had the power of God or not, and whether he really shocked them or not, whether any of these stories presented in the Book of Mormon happened or not, that is not the point; the point is that the lessons of anarchy and voluntarism are clearly there for us to learn from them. Nephi was certainly entitled to defend himself against his brother’s aggressions toward him. And he would have been entitled to do on the boat itself when they attacked him to tie him up but he instead let them take him and tie him up to teach them a lesson that without him and his neutralizing their aggressions by his righteousness and peace, they would surely die en route to the promised land on the great Pacific Ocean. He allowed them to tie him up for four days to show them that their hot headed aggressiveness toward the I nice t and peaceful would get them know where in life except an early grave, this time a watery one. He allowed them to tie him up so that avid could show forth his power to them, yet again, in the hopes of persuading them repent and listen to & follow his peaceful ways of cooperation and soberness instead of hot headed aggression. He allowed all this because, at the end of the day, he loved them as his family and fellow human beings and wished beyond anything for them to have as many chances at repenting and trying to live the higher way of the peace, personal initiative, love, merciful and cooperation of anarchy/voluntarism. Under anarchy, as sovereign individuals, every individual has the right to defend themselves against aggressors. But while defense of self and property even unto taking life can be justified, out of the sanctity of life and desire for the aggressor to have chances to repent and choose better, it can be wise to be merciful by limiting one’s defense to merely deterring the aggression or making the aggressor unable ti continue in his/her aggression without actually killing or maiming them, disarming them as it were it at all possible or deterring them from continuing in the attack. There is a place for justice, but there is also a place for mercy, and if the two, we would do well to prioritize the latter as much as we can in any given circumstance involving aggressors upon our person or property/rights, giving the aggressors the opportunity to change their ways and make better if their one life in this earth. This was Nephi’s MO in allowing his brothers to attack him and tie him up, to show them yet agains there is a higher power at play in their journey and a better way to live life. Nephi was sacrificing his comfort for four days, as it turns out, in attempts to teach them and let them be humbled by circumstance and threat of a natural death by the storm that arose due to their wickedness. In short, by all means defend yourself, but be wise in allocating justice and mercy, for the merciful will receive mercy in return. Don’t delight in killing & dispensing justice, even when completely justified, for doing so turns one into the very monster anarchists so much dislike. Always, in dispensing justice, do so out of pity and sorrow for the individual deserving it, wishing it didn’t have to be this way. Otherwise you run the risk of desensitizing yourself to punishment and vengeance and becoming the very thing you hate. Be hesitant of and slow to violence, even in justified defense of life and property when at all possible, and try to remember, tho the individual is aggressing against you, that person in still a fellow human being and they only have one life to live and if it’s all possible to make it so they can continue living it while changing their ways and living a better life, it’s worth it to try to make that a reality if at all possible, even to sacrificing a little bit of property if mercy will teach the aggressor to change. The merciful and just tend to receive mercy and justice.
1 Nephi 19:6
This one verse is a key part to understanding how the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and all other ancient and modern day scripture are to be taken with a few grains of salt when it comes to things that do not represent the principles of anarchy and voluntarism that are occasionally found within, like the Nephites and other peoples found within the Book of Mormon constantly trying to form governments and maintain the people’s rights and freedom under them, only to see such endeavors fail over and over again since the wicked always seek to rule and obtain the thrones of power the people erect to try to maintain the rights of the individual. This one verse shows that, despite all the goodness of the Book of Mormon writers like Nephi, Jacob, Alma, Moroni, etc, despite all the good principles of everyday, interpersonal living found within their works that are anarchic and voluntarist in nature, they are all, at the end of the day, still fallible human beings who were not raised in cultural vacuums and thus made mistakes. They got A LOT right in terms of anarchic/voluntarist living, but being imperfect human beings, they were influenced by the same passions and emotions we are today are influenced by, and occasionally those emotions and passions come out in their writings. Thus, it’s important to know that what is not anarchic and voluntarist in nature in the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture can be explained away by the fallibilities and biases of the people who lived in societies and cultures with other people, which cultures and societies inevitably influenced their outlooks on life. Nevertheless, despite these realities of the humanness of this book’s writers and the societies and cultures they existed in, the principles of anarchy and voluntarism still manage to continuously and reliably come out strong in their writings, as if these principles are some of the “sacred” things Nephi discusses the importance of writing down on his plates. We, like Nephi, are all imperfect and must exist in societies and cultures that influence our ways of thinking and looking at the world. It is possible to overcome these influences, if one works at it daily and makes a daily effort to live by the principles of anarchy and voluntarism enshrined herein in all one does. By all means judge people’s works, the things they do, as good or evil, and condemn the evil, but be slow to condemn the individual, for we all deserve the chance to repent and be forgiven, after restitution is made, of course, where and when possible. Reserve condemnation of individuals for those who make a concerted effort to make evil their daily habit.
Israel A Chosen People? God Picks Favorites from His Creations?
The critical reader thus far may be wondering or thinking, as a means of denouncing the aforementioned and continued arguments made thus far or that will be made, how God, the supposed creator of all humanity and all the earth & its animate life and inanimate creations could pick a favorite from amongst his children. Doesn’t that show favoritism and demonstrate that this deity can’t be real or can’t be as perfectly just and merciful as is claimed about Him? How can a loving parent pick a favorite, chosen child in which to bless more than the other(s)? Such a parent must be immoral, even evil to shower one with gifts and the others with curses or nothing at all, they may say. But the answer to this question or accusation is not only in the rest of these scriptural texts, some of which we have covered so far, but is in reason and logical deduction itself. The answer is that a perfectly just, merciful, and loving parent creator deity can indeed pick a favorite or a chosen from among his children, depending on the behavior and actions of those children in relation to their siblings. Naturally, a parent will favor the child or children who honor him and his teachings to them by following in his example and living their lives as he has shown them how to live, treating their fellow human siblings and non-human creations with love, kindness, respect, mercy, justice, and autonomy as individuals. Naturally, by the natural law concept of justice, a parent and nature in itself will bless those children with success and prosperity for being moral beings who strive to the best of their abilities to live in peace and harmony with their siblings and families as the parent has taught them to do. And naturally, while the parent’s love of the wayward child who does NOT live in peace with his/her siblings, but instead pursues aggressive behaviors and actions toward his/her siblings, does disappear forever, having been the parent’s creation, nevertheless, the peace loving parent will NOT favor or bless those of his children who harm and aggress upon the others. Indeed, a perfectly just and merciful parent deity cannot allow mercy to rob justice or justice to rob mercy where each must be given their due. And it may needs be that the parent separates such aggressive children from the rest and allow the natural punitive consequences of his/her behavior to flow unto him/her, i.e. curses and hardship/suffering. For in 1 Nephi______, Nephi tells how God will separate the righteous from the wicked, for He cannot allow the two to mingle, for the latter would attempt to the destroy the former through their aggressive behavior. This is simple justice. An unrepentant murderer, thief, or slaver cannot be permitted to dwell amongst his/her intended victims, for he/she will continue to rob his/her innocent and peaceful neighbors of their lives and rights, their property, creating rifts in justice where mercy can rob justice. There must needs be a separation accompanied with a separate place for each to dwell and live and receive their natural rewards. The righteous, AKA the peaceful non-aggressors who respect the autonomy and sovereignty and thus rights and property of each individual vs. the wicked, the aggressive murderers, thieves, torturers, abusers, slavers who don’t respect the autonomy and sovereignty and thus rights of humanity. This is ultimately what is meant by Israel vs. Gentile, the chosen vs un-chosen, the covenant people vs. the non-covenant people, the righteous vs. the wicked. These two groups and their ranks are entirely and freely open to whomever choses by their life choices to to enter into their ranks, regardless of where or when they are born, and regardless of anything that might set them aspart from each other visually, i.e. ethnically, culturally, physically, mentally, etc. God is no respecter of persons; he does not arbitrarily or randomly chose some from among his many children to be his favorites and shower them with good and prosperity while cursing the rest simply because they did not win the lucky lotto to be in his chosen group. No, the chosen, Israel, who are blessed by a peaceful, just, merciful, loving parent deity are those follow in his/her/their footsteps and live lives of peace and non-aggression and thus love towards their fellow human siblings. The non-chosen, call them gentile, non-covenant people, or whatever, are those who do not live in peace but live lives of aggression towards their fellow human siblings, i.e. wickedness, and thus are left to themselves to receive the just consequences of their doings, often in the lonely, dark, dreary, unproductive places of the world, for that is where they have chosen to dwell by their actions. This is how a perfectly loving, just, merciful parent deity can pick favorites or chosen from amongst his children; it’s all entirely dependent on what kind of lives they choose to live. Those who live in peace and respect the autonomy of others not only tend to prosper in peace and cooperation, but they on the whole live better lives financially, mentally, materialistically, and even environmentally. They prosper from the natural consequences of their good choices and from the blessings of their peaceful and thus loving parent deity. Those who do not, receive no such prosperity, for aggressions tends to beget aggression, and they must be separated from the righteous so they cannot destroy the righteous. It’s simply the natural laws of justice and mercy playing out. Each must be given their due.
The critical reader may say, but what of the innocent children of the wicked who are raised amongst the wicked and taught to be wicked by their fathers and mothers? The answer is that those children, especially when they come to adulthood, still have autonomy and choice, i.e. moral agency, to an extent, particularly if they are ever made to encounter the good and have the opportunity to know the good from the evil. But, for whatever reason, should they not ever have a chance to know the good and thus truly have an ability to choose the good over the evil in the end, the judgments on their lives and the choices made having been brought up in evil and not knowing the good will be merciful, for justice cannot rob mercy where people commit harmful actions not knowing what they are doing is wrong. This is why the Atonement of Christ, as taught by the LDS scriptures, is so important, for it satisfies and pays justice where it is due while also allowing the payer of justice, Christ, the ability to freely give mercy where mercy is due and deserved, such as in the above example of people raised amongst the wicked who never had a chance got know the good and thus truly have an ability to chose it. This is why Adam and Eve’s “transgression” in the Garden of Eden, in partaking of the “forbidden fruit,” was not only necessary, but on the whole a good thing, for or it truly made humanity like the Gods, knowing good from evil and thus ABLE to make a choice between the two and choose which group one would join, the chosen or the non-chosen, Israel vs. Gentile, the covenant people vs the non-covenant people. Without knowing good from evil, the individual remains in a state of innocence and thus stagnation, in a way, for they are not able to progress and develop through choice and action on having a knowledge of good and evil. If a person who was raised amongst evil, knowing only evil, finally encounters good, sees the difference between the two and the natural consequences of each, and chooses good, repenting of his/her evil ways, forsaking them and choosing peace and non-aggression and thus love over the alternative, mercy has a natural claim upon them and they are of course welcome to join the chosen group of fellow peaceful livers and dwell among them. This is simply, natural justice and mercy in action. Should they continue on in their evil, i.e. aggression, then of course mercy can have no claim on them, justice must be paid, and they must be cast out of the society of the peaceful livers, for not living peacefully. The consequences for the sins of the fathers are only visited upon their children while said children continue in the sinful, wicked (aggressive) behavior of the fathers. The moment they cease such aggressive behavior and repent, making amends where possible, the curse of the wicked ceases having any claim on them and mercy can open its loving arms to embrace them as they enter into the chosen group and live lives of peace. This is simply, natural justice and mercy. Likewise, should any member of the chosen group begin to live lives of continued aggression, they are no longer welcome amongst the chosen and must be cast out to join the wicked and thus cursed.
Whether one is a member of the chosen, i.e. righteous, peaceful group or the non-chosen, aggressive and thus cursed group is entirely up to the fully informed individual and the choices they make in life. This is what is meant by God picking favorites or a chosen people from amongst his human children. It has everything to do with how his human children choose to live their lives and the natural consequences that follow those choices. It has nothing to do with God being an arbitrary, cruel parent simply picking favorites by random lottery or some other random, arbitrary reason such as ethnicity, physical features, wealth, etc.
Indeed, 1 Nephi 22:28n says exactly this:
“But, behold, all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people shall dwell safely in the Holy One of Israel if it so be that they will arepent.
1 Nephi 22:13-31 discusses further the destruction and separation of the righteous from the wicked, the peaceful, non-aggressive from the aggressive, for God, being a righteous, peaceful, loving individual, cannot allow the aggressive wicked to destroy the peaceful righteous. The righteous who shall be protected and prosper, the chosen people, will be called Zion, the House of Israel, the covenant people, for they are the ones who live according to the peaceful, loving, merciful, just, and persuasion based, non aggressive standards of Christ and God; the wicked, the whore of all the earth, the great and abominable church, lead by the evil, Satan, who live their lives according to the ways of Satan, i.e. aggressive behaviors and actions such as murder, theft, torture, slavery, pride, arrogance, mercilessness, injustice, etc., they are the those who shall be destroyed, either by natural destructions such as natural disasters, wars with each other, pestilence/disease/viral infections, or war AKA murder amongst themselves. They will destroy themselves or be destroyed by some other means, for they cannot be permitted to ravage the righteous and kill the righteous off, for such would be an unjust God should the wicked be allowed to fully wipe the righteous off the face of the earth. And why is is just for the wicked to be finally and fully wiped off the face of the earth in the end days when they are ripe in their iniquity? Why is it just to not allow the wicked to destroy the righteous and to separate the wicked from the righteous? Because the righteous have the right to defend themselves and their lives, their property, or be defended by God because they have a right to their lives and their property, having aggressed upon no one and done no wrong. Just as a peaceful individual has a right to defend his life and property from the attack of another aggressive individual who seeks to take the innocent person’s life and property from himself, having done no wrong, the righteous have a right defend themselves or be defended by a higher power against the aggressive attacks by the wicked to destroy them and take their lives and property for themselves to benefit from. Otherwise, there would be no justice, no mercy, no right and wrong, no morality, no “natural laws,” and thus truly chaos and disorder would reign and it would truly be a “might equals right” existence in which the strong would constantly devour the weak, not the very eventual destruction of humanity and all that is. How could a loving, merciful God kill off his own children? Because while loving and merciful, he is also just, and he cannot allow his aggressive, murderous, thieving, slavery practicing children to kill off or enslave the non-aggressive, peaceful and thus righteous and innocent children. To allow such would be to allow injustice to rob mercy, to allow injustice to reign supreme. Such a merciful, loving, yet just parent deity, while he loves all he children, cannot condone the aggression of one group to destroy the other, and thus he must step in to protect the nonaggressive children from the aggression of the others, even to the taking of the lives of the aggressive children, which would break his heart in having to do so, for he loves them. It would be like a mother or father having to shoot to death one of their children who was attempting to murder their other innocent child out of protection of the innocent one. It would cause the utmost heartache for the mother or father to have to do so, for that child is their own creation and thus love for them remains despite that child’s actions, but doing so, killing the murderous one out of protection for the innocent one is still necessary for the parents cannot allow the murderous child to slaughter his/her innocent brother/sister. Everyone has a right to life and to protect or have that life be protected by others from the aggressive actions by others to take it from them. The aggressive individual who seeks to take the life of another, an innocent, thereby in their attempts, forfeits the right to their own life by seeking the life of another. This is simple justice and mercy, eternal laws, at play.
1 Nephi 22:15 & 26 are interesting verses concerning anarchy/voluntarism for a couple reasons; they say the following of the righteous in the last days:
15 For behold, saith the prophet, the time cometh speedily that Satan shall have no more power over the hearts of the children of men; for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.
26 And because of the righteousness of his people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness, and the Holy One of Israel reigneth.
After the destruction of he wicked, those who live aggressively towards their fellow man, the people will dwell in righteousness and Satan shall have no power over them, their hearts being set on living righteously as Christ and God does, via non-aggression, peace, persuasion, love, charity, justice, and mercy. They shall voluntarily choose righteousness and the voluntarist ways of Christ and God, which can only mean that Christ won’t truly “reign” or rule over them, in the sense of having power over them to coerce them to do as he wishes. Christ will simply live with them and teach them, and they will voluntarily harken to his words, his teachings, and his ways, being steadfast in their desire to live righteously, i.e. peacefully and non-aggressively, respecting the autonomy, sovereignty, and rights of every other individual. Christ will be like Nephi to his elder brothers, not a ruler, a king, or a dictator over them, but a teacher, a guide, and a judge who everyone will voluntarily choose to follow and live according to his ways. Many Christian anarchists use the phrase “no king but Christ.” I do not like nor do I use this phrase, simply because it tends to confuse too many people, even many Christian anarchists themselves, into thinking that Christ will be like an earthly king, ruling by dictate and coercion, forcing his will onto everyone regardless of whether they want it or not. Christ did not live his earthly life that way, nor has he ever done things that way in the scriptures in the past, nor will he ever truly “rule” over his followers; rather, he will live and reign with them as they will be one in purpose, living peacefully and voluntarily and loving their fellow human siblings. Certainly, Christ will have power; he has to in order to defeat and destroy the great and abominable church lead by Satan and his followers, the aggressive wicked who delight in or care not about harming their fellow human beings and their rights and property. But Christ will not wield that power as a Cromwell, a Bonaparte, a Caesar, a Washington, a Louverture or Dessalines, a republican president, a king or parliamentary prime minister,, etc., coercively shoving his will down everyone else’s throats because he can. He will wield that power solely in protection of the innocent and non-aggressors against those who try to aggress against them, so that the innocent may have safety in order to prosper according to their peaceful ways of living. Therefore, Christ will not be king, at least not in the sense of an earthly king, such as described in 1 Samuel 8 in the Bible. I thus do not care for nor use the phrase “no king but Christ,” for it has a tendency to muddy the waters of what life with Christ will be like, given mankind’s experience with “kings.”
2 Nephi 2: freedom in the ability to know & choose good from evil
Perhaps some critics will say, God is cruel for allowing people to choose evil & inflict punishment/consequences on their choices, to which I respond, far from it! In 2 Nephi 2, Lehi, preparing for his near death, speaks final words to his children wherein he explains to them eternal law of opposition in all things. Some may find it familiar, if they are indeed familiar with Newton’s Third Law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, for it is essentially the same natural scientific law of logic. In order for there to be good, there must be evil, and in order to truly be able to choose one from the other in freedom, there just be two opposites from which to choose and one must know & understand the good from the evil and the co sequences of choosing one or the other. If Adam and Eve had remained in the Garden, they’d have remained in innocence neither knowing good nor evil, for to know good and joy you must also know evil and sorrow. To know those opposites, there had to be given a “law” or a “commandment” to follow, don’t partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for without such imperative, there would be no freedom of choice to choose the one or the other. But, equally so, without Adam and Eve breaking said “commandment,” there would still also not be any knowledge of good and evil and thus no freedom of choice. For to know good, you just know bad, and to know bad, you must commit it or have seen it committed by others so as to learn from it. And that is exactly what Adam and Eve did; the committed the “bad,” thus making themselves knowledgeable of both good and bad; the fruit itself did not give them knowledge of good and bad. It was the commission of the transgression in partaking of the fruit that allowed them to understand the good having finally understood the bad. Critics may say, but wait is this not God setting Adam and Eve and thus mankind up for failure, knowing they must experience the law of opposites, good and bad, while giving them a commandment not to commit the bad by partaking if the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Is t this a Kobayashi Maru situation where humanity fails regardless of what they do? No, it is not. Partaking if the fruit was part of the plan all along, for as Lehi explains, without doing so, there could be no knowledge of the law of opposites, and thus no freedom of choice and no progression in being able to learn from one’s mistakes by committing bad so one can know the good and repent by taking advantage of Christ’s sacrificial Atonement of suffer for the sins/evil of humanity so as to be able to satisfy/pay justice & roll out mercy to those who demonstrate repentance. Since partaking if the fruit was part of the plan of the salvation of mankind, thus there had to a law of opposites put into place for which Adam and Eve could have knowledge of and thus have freedom of choice. Therefore, the decision to partake of the fruit by Eve first & then Adam, far from being a mistake or an actual evil, was in actually a cunning move by both so as to our unto motion knowledge as the Gods have and thus freedom of choice and progression or stagnation based on whether one chooses good or evil. It is thus not a sin that Adam and Eve committed, but rather, a “transgression,” for in doing so, they “broke” the commandment, but the commandment was only put in place for them TO break so that there would be a law of opposites in effect where they could then choose one or the other and gain knowledge of good and evil like the Gods. So in reality, when Satan told eve that they would not die but would become as the Gods knowing good and evil, there was a lie and truth. The lie was that they would not die; they would, and did, as do all who live in this earth. Even Christ himself died. The truth was that Adam and Eve would become as the Gods with a knowledge of good and evil and thus freedom of choice to act and not be acted upon by being mere ignorant, “innocent” slaves neither knowing joy nor sorrow, to be acted upon by not being able to act having no knowledge of good and evil and thus freedom of choice. Thus, thru Adam and Eve’s “transgression” (not sin), the ability to sin and repent came about, yes, putting all of Adam and Eve’s descendants into the ability to be tempted by sin by now having a knowledge of good by having a knowledge of bad, but also having the choice not choose it. And as a fall back for knowing all of humanity would at one time or another choose sin/evil and thus need a way to repent and escape the full burden of facing justice alone, Christ’s Atonement wherein he suffered for the sins of mankind so that justice may have its due and mercy doled out to repentant, was made necessary and planned for. Far from God being some cruel, sadistic tyrant who sets his children up to fail by placing them in a fallen, fallible world wherein both good and evil are both possible and then judging harshly whoever doesn’t stay perfect, which is all of us - far from being such, God’s plan was to all along, out of love for his children, to give them freedom of choice by giving them knowledge of good and evil and thus the ability to freely choose the one of the other, while also providing a fall back for repentance and mercy, Christ’s Atonement. It is humanity that has, sadly, more often than not chosen evil out of ease or greed and thus created thrones of aggressive violence, i.e. human government, wherein a few may enslave the many & murder or torture them if they attempt to fight back for their freedom, making them things to be acted upon more so than they can be beings who act by threatening unspeakable pain and violence against them if they don’t comply and be acted upon. Anarchy brings back the freedom of the individual to act and not be acted upon as a slave.
2 Nephi 1:10: Rejecting the Messiah
There are critics who would perhaps say that a “God” who punishes his children for rejecting him is no perfectly just and merciful God, but a emotional fueled, arrogant tyrant who destroys any who doesn’t worship him and acknowledge his status as Deity over humanity, like a Roman emperor who slaughters entires populations of people who personal refuse to acknowledge his rule over their territory. This couldn’t be further from reality and what scriptures, like 2 Nephi 1:5-12 say about God’s retribution against his children. Verse 10, specifically says the following:
But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
Taken alone, out of context of the rest of the verses in the chapter and the rest of the chapters around it, perhaps the critics could be justified in saying the God of the Book of Mormon is a self-absorbed, arrogant, tyrannical prick because he destroys his children simply for not believing in him and believe Jesus is the Messiah, sending foreigners to invade, conquer, and kill them in wars of conquest or civil wars. But when put back in to the context of the rest of the verses and chapters surrounding it, the message is clear; God doesn’t simply destroy his children in a hissy fit of anger because they don’t recognize or admit his all powerful status as their creator. No, instead, he allows them to be destroyed because they turn to evil and iniquity, i.e. aggression towards the non-aggressive, AKA the innocent, enslaving, oppressing, murdering, thieving, and torturing the innocent. This turn to iniquity and ripening in that iniquity over a long period of time having a knowledge of their iniquity and refusing to repent and change their ways and cease their aggressions against the innocent - this is what is meant by them “rejecting the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their redeemer and their God.” And this is why they will be “punished” or rather, will be allowed to receive the rewards and natural consequences of their aggressions, which “punishment” will be just, for they have committed continual aggressions against the innocent and the blood of the innocent cries out for justice against them. And such “punishments,” or using the better term, “consequences” will include invasion by foreign conquerors, bloodsheds, i.e. wars caused by such foreign invasions or civil wars amongst the native populations, and the eventual scattering and subduing of the people who became ripe in their iniquity. Just as it would be perfectly just in an anarchist society to punish aggressors or compel restitution be made by an aggressor to the innocent victims, I.e. rights violations, even up to exile, outlawing, and even death in self defense, the same natural laws of justice work on those who “reject the Messiah, AKA Christ, their God, not simply because they don’t believe in him and his power and status, but because of their aggressive, sinful, iniquitous behavior that most often comes along with not believing in him and his ways, which ways are anarchy, freedom, and non-aggression.
2 Nephi 2: 37-29: Liberty & Eternal Life through Christ/God, Captivity & Eternal Misery through the Devil
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.
There are a few things of interest regarding anarchy and the pure, individual liberty it allows to exist in these verses. One thing to note is the difference in description of life between those who choose the ways of Christ and those who choose the way of Satan, “the devil.” Those who choose the ways of Christ, i.e. non-aggression, peace, love, mercy, justice, charity, etc., are described as living forever in joy (“men are that they might have joy,” from verse 25) and freedom/liberty, while those who choose the ways of Satan, i.e. aggressions like murder, theft, enslaving of others, torture, etc., are described living eternal lives of misery (see verse 18) and enslavement, or non-liberty, where Satan “reigns” or rules over them. In the new Testament Biblical Gospels, the temptation of Christ by Satan is described, and one of those temptations is where Satan offers Christ control and power over all the nations of the world and their riches and territories if he, Christ, but worship Satan. Christ of course refuses. The moral of the story and of these verses here is that, though Satan promises human beings the world, promising them great amounts of power over entire countries and their peoples, wealth, and territories in exchange for “worshiping” him by doing his deeds, i.e. murders, thefts, torturing, enslaving, otherwise known as aggressions, and though they may indeed enjoy some of that power during their lifetime here on earth, Satan always takes it away back for himself after they die and they become his, his slave, to be ruled over as a slave, having ruled over others as slave masters in this life. Thus the meaning of the other Biblical Gospels scripture, “[f]or what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the world, and lose his own soul?” Losing one’s should means becoming a slave to Satan, where he rules as a tyrant over those who chose his ways of tyranny in their earthly life, thereby losing their freedom and doomed to live in slavery and misery for the choices of aggression they made during their earthly probation, as natural consequences of justice. Thus, freedom, or liberty of the individual comes through choosing Christ, and choosing Christ means living a Christlike life, a life of peace/non-aggression, love, charity, patience, persuasion, mercy, and justice. And joy comes from being free, being able to act and not be acted upon, i.e. slavery. In short, Christ’s way is anarchy, and an eternal life of joy 7 liberty comes from choosing anarchy, i.e. Christ’s way, while Satan’s way is of slavery and rule over others, aggressing against innocents, i.e. human government of aggression and coercion, which produces eternal misery, warfare, hatred, and constant aggression against you and you against others.
The Game of Thrones
One key & very logical and persuasive argument anarchists make against a seat of power, i.e. a government that holds a lot of sway in supporting their desires for a stateless society where every individual governs themselves is the notion of a “game of thrones” being the direct result of such a seat of power existing in the first place. By “game of thrones,” I am of course referencing the popular brutal film series in which different powerful, wealthy people fight & kill/destroy each other and their respective armies for control over the throne and the riches, power, & prestige it brings. This notion is NOT one of fantasy or fiction. One can trace a very real game of thrones throughout each nation in existence today, on the national level, as well as as the global or territorial level, ranging in time from thousand and thousands of years ago to our very immediate time. It doesn’t matter whether that the throne is one of constitutional monarchy, republicanism, democracy, aristocracy, theocracy, etc. Whatever the form the throne takes, the deadly competition for it plays out and always has and always will as long as it exists. One of the most recent examples was the game of thrones battle for world hegemony on the global imperial level between the US & its “western allies” against the Soviet Union & it’s eastern allies, i.e. Western “liberalism,” which was really just American style Fascism vs. communism & socialism. This battle came to head during WWII when Germany & Italian Fascism threatened American Fascism and Communism (all of which were statist and authoritarian/dictatorial, only in different ways and to differing degrees). European Fascism, via Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy and Japan challenged challenged American & Soviet interests throughout the world enough to become a threat that had to be removed from the equation. Once this was accomplished and Germany, Italy, and Japan were neutralized, the game of thrones, the throne being the world imperial hegemon, narrowed down to just he US & the Soviets. The US and its brand of “Liberal, Democratic Fascism” that payed lip services to rights and freedom eventually “won” the throne (for a time, at least) when the Soviet Union & its empire collapsed over time. But within that greater global game of thrones, there were smaller and more local games of thrones occurring simultaneously both in the US, the USSR, their individual empires, and the different nations that composed them, on down to the local village and town level. Anarchists have always maintained, if you erect a seat of power in which one person or a group of people, however numerous maintains a monopoly on “legal” violence that people believe is a legitimate authority that must be obeyed, the worst people in human society will always rise to do battle and do anything they can obtain that throne/seat of power & all the riches, power, and prestige that comes with it. Thus it is best not to even tempt mankind with such a prize because death and destruction only follows it. Thus, the position of anarchists that it is best and the most peace and prosperity is achieved for everyone when each individual is the sole sovereign authority over their lives. The game of thrones and its death & destruction also features very heavily in the Book of Mormon as well, which lends support to the anarchist position that it is best for such a throne to never even exist except on the individual level. We shall examine it shortly; however, before doing so, it’s important to note that most Mormons recognize this bloody game of thrones when it comes to monarchy, being able to see it play it in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon monarchical societies of ancient monarchical Israel the different monarchical Book of Mormon societies like the Laminates and their Nephite allies, but also the Nephites themselves under King Noah & Limhi, up to King Mosiah himself, as well as (& particularly) the Jaredites. But while most Mormons can see this game of thrones occur in the scriptural monarchical societies, they are less able to see it play out in the post monarchical “Rule of the Judges in Nephite society, scripturally, and in their own time under their own “republican” system of government dominant in the US today. Thus, I shall first denote this bloody game of thrones that occurs in the scriptural monarchical societies but then turn to the “democratic” system of the “Reign of Judges” and apply the similarities of that game of thrones under the Book of Mormon Judges system to today’s modern, US republican system of government. For that is what the Book of Mormon is, it’s a history of the ancient peoples of the Americas that is full of lessons meant to instruct & guide us in these modern, current times. It is meant to be applied to today, individually and nationally, for that is the is purpose. And it’s echos & reverberations in today’s American government, empire, and society are numerous in number and clear as day for any who wishes to seem them.
In 1 Samuel chapter 8, we see Ancient Israel wishing to transition from a Judge system in which God’s prophet is the judge of the society, to a monarchial one so Israel can be like all other nations on the earth at the time. Samuel, the Prophet and Judge is extremely worried and sorrowful of this turn of events, but God instructs Samuel to give the people what they want, but with a warning: that with a king will come tyranny on a level Israel hadn’t experienced for quite some time, since fleeing slavery in Egypt. And part of that tyranny ended up be a game of thrones between various contenders and their supporters for the throne, in which each side fights and kills the other until one comes out dominant. We see this play out very early in monarchical Israel, even form the first king, King Saul, when he and his position of power was threatened by David after he killed Goliath. But the Bible is not our focus here. The Book of Mormon is out focus, so let us turn there. We see early hints at this game of thrones tendency regarding seats of power, i.e. governments after Lehi and his family land in the Americas and Lehi dies. In 2 Nephi Chapter 5, we see that, after Lehi dies, the splintering of his family occurs, with the righteous group following Nephi and the wicked group folloiwing Laman and Lemuel. Indeed, in that chapter we read that Laman and Lemuel sought to kill Nephi for they saw the the right to rule over “this people” as theirs, being the eldest of Lehi’s sons. For Laman and Lemuel, they saw leading the group from a perspective of government, of status, prestige, and power OVER the people, and they thought Nephi sought to take that power OVER the people from them. In reality, Nephi wanted no such thing, as well shall see. But Laman and Lemuel were certain he, Nephi meant to rule OVER them and their people instead of them. Thus, they sought to kill him for what they thought was a seat of power, a throne. Seeing their bloodthirstiness toward him and his family, Nephi and his followers, instead of staying and fighting for control over all of Lehi’s family, took the anarchist route and fled for freedom and safety instead into the wilderness, leaving Laman, Lemuel, and their seats of power and thrones and struggles for them in their wake. Once arriving upon their destination having chosen the peaceful, anarchic route of separating and fleeing from Laman and Lemuel’s faction, after a while, Nephi’s group wished Nephi to be their king and ruler. Nephi turned them down, saying he would do what he can to guide them, but he utterly refused to be their king. Now it doesn’t go into specificity as to WHY Nephi refused to be their king, but suffices to say that he wished to remained their teacher only. Having the Brass Plates, i.e. the history of the Jews and Israel with him, it is likely Nephi knew full well of the bloody game of thrones that accompanies seats of power, the thrones of kings who rule OVER people, having just fled one such tyrannical king in leaving Jerusalem & the Old World for the new for the Americas.
We see plenty concerning the bloody game of thrones that accompanies monarchy later in the Book of Mormon in chapters like Mosiah 29, in which Mosiah, the last Npehite king proposes the democratic system of the judges where the people choose judges to be their sovereigns. The reason he proposed this system is because all of his sons had declined to be the next king over the Nephites and Mosiah was fearful that if he appointed someone else to be king over them, that
there would rise acontentions among you. And who knoweth but what my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry and bdraw away a part of this people after him, which would cause wars and contentions among you, which would be the cause of shedding much blood and perverting the way of the Lord, yea, and destroy the souls of many people.
We see this fear of the people dividing into contentious groups over who is the rightful king, i.e. the game of thrones play out especially in the descriptions of the Jadeite society that predated the Nephite groups coming over from Jerusalem, as seen in Ether Chapters 6-15. Ether concerns a group of people who followed a man named “The Brother of Jared,” who, like Lehi after him, lead his people out of the Old World during the Tower of Babel period of Biblical history across the ocean to the Americas. Once they arrived, the Brother of Jared grew old and was about to die; his people & his people desired him to appoint them a king to be their ruler. He, like Nephi & the Biblical Prophet Samuel after him worried about the effects monarchy would have on the people, that it would lead to their captivity, as seen in Ether Chapter 6. Nevertheless, he heeds their desires and appoints them a king, one of the sons of Jared himself. Throughout the following chapters of the Book of Ether, we see one group of the Jadeite people fight, clamor, and kill the other group(s) for control over that monarchical throne. Indeed, so much bloodshed did that throne of power cause amongst the Jadeite people that it eventually lead to a complete all out, total civil war in which all of the Jadeite people but one were slaughtered fighting for the throne.
But, the game of thrones that follow monarchical seats of power as seen in the Bible and Book of Mormon are not alone. We see this very deadly & destructive game of thrones follow the seat(s) of power created by the last Nephite King, Mosiah that became known as his democratic system of judges, or the “Reign of the Judges,” which system dominated Nephite and Laminates societies up until just before the coming of Christ himself to peoples of the Americas after his Biblical Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jumping back to Mosiah 29 in the Book of Mormon, Mosiah describes his system of judges to the Nephite people after his sons refuse to be his heir to his throne. Under that system, the people democratically elect, by way of majority vote, a series of judges who shall be their law keepers and judge the people when they have committed crimes by violating their laws. There was the Chief Judge over all the people, and lesser more local judges as well, each with their own appellate levels going up to the Chief Judge himself. The people elected Alma, who was High Priest to be their first Chief Judge, and elected all the lesser and local judges as well, and Josiah’s reign as king ended with and thus did the monarchical throne over the Nephites end with him. However, it was not the end of thrones nor the game of thrones that accompany them, for in its place was erected another throne after which the wicked, greedy, power mongers in their society could clamor in order to steal, lie, kidnap, imprison, & murder & enslave the innocent. And it wasn’t long into the Reign of the Judges that we see the new games for the new throne begin to play out. Indeed, it was within the space of one to two years under the new Judges system when one Nephite gathered a large following that sought to undo the Judges system and establish him as king over the land. The greater part of Nephite society rejected this group and their tyrannical, monarchical aspirations over them, and this group separated themselves from Nephite society and left, establishing a man named Amlici to be king over them. They left and went and joined the Laminates. The Amlicites stirred up the Laminates to join them in waging war upon the Nephites and their system of judges in order to achieve the original design of Amlici and his people in establishing Amlici as king over the entire Nephite civilization so he could rule over them as tyrants. Amlici knew he could never obtain the throne of Chief Judge since Alma had just been elected, so he knew he had to seek that throne of power some other way by conquest and swayed the Laminates to join him in his attempt. The coup attempt by the Amlicites and their Laminates allies over the Nephites ultimately ended in failure, with Alma the Chief Judge killing Amlici in defense of his throne. Now Alma was not an evil, power seeking man; he didn’t defend so much his throne, per se, as he did the Nephite people from the Amlicite and Laminates aggressions again them in their attempts to seek the throne. This is evidenced even further by Alma later stepping down from his position of Chief Judge in order to preach to the people. But, despite Alma not being a power monger and throne seeker, the throne itself remained for later aspiring tyrants to seek it in order to enrich themselves in wealth & glory, oppressing any and all in the process. We see many such attempts at the Chief Judge throne play out over the Reign of the Judges, either by Nephites seeking to obtain it thru the democratic process, or if they couldn’t obtain it that way, they went the way of Amlici and sought the Laminates as their allies to conquer the Nephites for force of war in order to obtain the throne over them. In the end, the existence of the thrones of power in the system of democratically elected judges were eventually seized thru normal, democratic means by evil, greedy, lying, murderous tyrants who used those seats of power to oppress and enslave the Nephite people for their own enrichment, glory, and more power grabs, until the tyrants in the judgment seats became so numerous, so tyrannical, & so power hungry, that they ended up collapsing the entire system in their attempts to take the top throne of Chief Judge by murder; they collapsed the entire system thru their thieving and murdering and using the thrones of judgeship to do so and hide their doings and escape judgement themselves, but most especially thru their seeking the throne of Chief Judge itself having already taken over the lesser judgeship thrones. We see this collapse of the throne in the form of thee Reign of the Judges take place just a mere 120 years into the system, a final blow to a system that proved to be just as deadly, just as insecure, and just as bloody and tyrannical as monarchy had been. And the reason for these similar bloodsheds and tyrannical destructions between the monarchical and democratic judgeship thrones as depicted in the Book of Mormon was because they were both still thrones to be sought after that gave he /she who sat upon it a monopoly on violence over everyone else with devoted armies and mobs of thugs called “police” that could be sent out to do the ruler’s bidding. Regardless of the form it took, it was still of a throne of power that left a trail of blood, guts, enslavement, and destruction in its wake. That the people elected their judges by majority vote ended up doing very little in the way of acting as a check on the power that throne offered to any who sought it and did whatever it took to obtain it. That democratic throne of Chief Judge ended up being just as bloody, contentious and destructive as the throne of the king had been. That there were some righteous judges just as there were some righteous kings is neither her no there. In the end, regardless of the form the throne took, it still allowed for some to wage a bloody game of thrones in order to obtain it which ultimately lead the the collapse of either the society and the throne itself.
After the collapse of the Reign of the Judges system and the society it governed, there followed a period radical decentralization in which the people broke into tribes. The remarkable and important thing to note here is that during this radical decentralized tribal realignment, there was peace for a while in which the tribes traded with each other and established treaties in which none would war with the other. Yet each had their own laws according to whoever they chose as the leader of their tribes. Yet the peace held. However, despite the collapse of the throne of power that was the Chief Judge seat and its dissolution into the radical decentralized tribal form in which a multitude of thrones were created in its stead, there remained the problem that thrones over others still remained. And yet again, the wicked and power hungry in society sought those thrones and obtained them and kept up the evil ways of oppression of others so that despite the implosion of the centralized Neophyte state and the radical decentralization of power on the tribal level, tyranny still remained, so much so that the prophets of God were oppressed and cast out of the tribes for their preaching. This just goes to show that, regardless of how decentralized thrones over others are erected in place a centralized throne, the same problems of oppression and abuse of that the powers that throne entails will remain. The solution is thus to abandon erecting thrones and seats of power in which one person or even groups of people have power over others and instead opt for anarchy, in which the only throne that exists in that of the individual.
And this is exactly what happened in the Book of Mormon after the collapse of the Reign of the Judges and the subsequent tribal system; The wicked, those who used thrones and other positions of power to oppress others for their own advancement and enrichment, were destroyed, either by other wicked people, or by the destructions of nature that accompanied the Crucifixion of Christ; what remained was the more righteous of the people until Christ himself came, upon which time the people were taught the ways of Christ, i.e. anarchy and voluntarism in which every person dealt justly with the other and freely helped and gave of one’s substance to others in need so that they were one and had all in common with one another. And this was all achieved voluntarily, without any throne of power being erected to bring it about; each individual, for 200 years remained in complete control over themselves, slave to no one, no one ruler over anyone else, all because they voluntarily chose to deal justly one with another and make voluntarism and Christ’s Golden Rule their common law. Indeed, it was only under anarchy and voluntarism following the ways of Christ that
16 there were no aenvyings, nor bstrifes, nor ctumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of dlasciviousness; and surely there could not be a ehappier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.
17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in aone, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (4 Nephi, 1)
It was only when the people abandoned the anarchic and voluntarist ways of Christ & started erecting classes, churches (i.e. governments) and positions of power in order to get gain and enrich themselves again after 200 years that the aforementioned evils in verses 16 and 17 of 4 Nephi 1 returned and oppression spread across the land. And the Nephites became so evil and tyrannical in the doings to each other that they were eventually wiped out as a civilization, hunted to extinction by themselves through war and by the Lamanites, just as the Jaredites had destroyed themselves with their evil that was resultant of bloody conquests for thrones of power over others.
And herein lies the lessen for our modern day; no amount of checks and balances on the throne of power were successful in keeping the throne in check. War and bloodshed eventually took over and destroyed the civilizations that maintained those thrones of power, for they acted as continual temptations for the prideful, greedy, and power hungry amongst their civilizations until so much oppression and evil doings to each other lead them to destroy each other. The lesson for us today from these games of thrones seen in the Book of Mormon is clear. Abandon thrones of power, or else end up being destroyed by them. Chose the peaceful way of Christ, anarchy, voluntarism, and the Golden Rule. Harm no one else in their equal rights, let others live their lives according to their own desires, and help each other in the ways we can with whatever means we happen to have. This is the pathway to success and peace.
Or perhaps another take on D&C 134 could be that it means what it says and that the idea of “governments being instituted for the benefit of mankind” is like the Law of Moses, a lesser “law” given in place of a higher (anarchy) because of the pride and aggressive nature of the people, which is meant to prepare and reshape such a prideful, aggressive people for the higher law of anarchy, where, as Joseph Smith, Jr. himself said of his “governing” during the Nauvoo era of LDS church history, you teach the people correct principles (of justice, non-aggression, and anarchic living) and they govern themselves. Whatever the case, D&C 134 must be looked at differently from the perspectives of anarchy such as those found the in Book of Mormon or scrapped altogether.
Article of Faith 12:
Now, there may be some LDS who say, “what about Article of Faith 12?” The same applies here to Article of Faith 12 as D&C 134 is the foundation upon which AF12 is built. But, let’s look briefly at AF12 as well as AF13 and see what they have to say about each other.
Article of Faith 12 says:
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
However, Article of Faith 13 is just as important in helping us understand AF12. It says:
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Now, kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates, “the law,” these are all aspects of government, offices and functions. We have already established beyond any doubt that government is built upon and run by aggressive violence or threats thereof. In order for government to exist, it must have these offices listed above in AF12, and these offices are responsible for creating government’s main function, declaring & enforcing “the law.” And part of this “law” these offices must declare and enforce are “revenue collection edicts,” i.e. taxes, which this government and its offices must have in order to maintain its existence. And it has already been clearly demonstrated that taxation is literally a group of men pointing a gun or threatening to point a gun at the head of a neighbor, saying, “give us your property so we can fund our efforts to keep stealing from you so we can have this job of stealing from you; if you don’t we’ll steal more property, kidnap you & throw you in a cage, or kill you.” Taxation of is theft at the point of a gun or the threat thereof. And the rest of these “laws” that these kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates enforce must be done so by the same threats of aggressive violence toward any who might say no, all the while making the same threats of violence against the same victims in order to rob them so as to have the revenue and thus man-power to make the other threats of violence regarding the other “laws” of said government. Thus, government is in its essence aggressive violence, wherein its officers steal/rob, kidnap, hold hostage, unjustly restrain & imprison, murder, torture, and otherwise enslave innocent humans beings in order to maintain its existence so as to keep doing those things and benefit off the hard work and property of others through theft. Article of Faith 13 says we Mormons believe in being honest, chaste, benevolent, and virtuous, and in “doing good to all men." Threatening violence against innocent people who have not harmed anyone so as to steal their property, or actually stealing their property, kidnapping them, restraining them, imprisoning them, denying them the ability to provide for themselves, torturing them, taking them from their family, or murdering them and enslaving them - none of these actions are honest, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, or “doing good to all men.” Therefore, if that is what kings, presidents, magistrates, and rulers do, and it is most assuredly what they do, along with their army of law enforcement officers, then we cannot logically and consistently believe in Article of Faith 13 AND Article of Faith 12 simultaneously, for AF13 in effect nullifies AF12. And as we’ve seen, D&C 134 nullifies AF12 as well since it is the foundation of AF12 and D&C 134 is just as incoherent and illogical in itself as AF12 and AF13 are in relation to each other.
Thus, if we Mormons are to believe in being honest, chaste, virtuous, and benevolent and in “doing good to all men,” we cannot in good faith, conscience, nor logically believe in kings, presidents, magistrates, rulers, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law when these very things require us to violate the above principles as they are all inherently based in aggressive violence or threats thereof. Thus, another fatal blow to government and another win for anarchy and voluntarism, which are inherently based upon the above principles of AF13 as well as those found in D&C 121:41-45. Anarchy and voluntarism are Christ’s and God the Father’s way as they allow for and require that the agency of the individual remain intact for them to choose good or evil, Christ/God or Satan, and be free to to use that agency to act and not be acted upon as slaves, like under government. God forces no man to heaven, and he cast out Lucifer, Son of the Morning to become Satan for his rebellion in Heaven wherein he attempted to steal God’s position and glory and enslave us, his brethren by denying us our agency and forcing us to choose and do good, thus forcing us back to heaven. God favors agency and freedom of the individual, and anarchy and voluntarism alone provide for those to remain intact so his individual children can indeed be free agents to choose and act for themselves and receive their rewards for dong so. Satan’s way is violent, aggressive, coercive government. God’s way is anarchy and voluntarism. Amen.
Anarchy & D&C 98:4-8 & 101:76-80: Befriending The Constitution?
Critics of my take on Anarchy & the LDS scriptures may also cite D&C 98 & 101 in an attempt to “disprove” my argument that anarchy is the way of God, is to be found throughout the LDS scriptures, and thus Mormons ought to be opposing & supporting the eradication of the governments of men where some human beings rule over the rest. They may look at D&C 98:6 and D&C 101:80 and say, “see, the Constitution is good and established by God! We must support it, every last article, clause, sentence, and word! Therefore, government is good.” But to do so would be a mistake and would be again another fine example of not seeing the forest for the tree, like zeroing in on one ship in a harbor while ignoring the rest of the ships in the harbor. The rest of the context in the verses surrounding D&C 98:6 and D&C 101:80 are just as, if not indeed, MORE important in helping us understand just what these sections are saying about the Constitution. Let us look at the verses in detail; underlining has been added for emphasis:
D&C 98:4-8
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the alaws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that alaw of the land which is bconstitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the aconstitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you afree, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
D&C 101:76-80
76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—
77 According to the laws and aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be baccountable for his own sins in the day of cjudgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in abondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the bshedding of blood.
God may have caused, or rather, allowed the Constitution to be established, but He did so for the express purpose of maintaining and protecting the rights and freedom of every individual human being, regardless of where they come from. This was done so that no one would be in bondage to one another and that they may be able to make their own choices in life according to the moral agency God has given every individual so that they may be judged and held accountable for their choices and actions in life. Anything more or less than this regarding the laws of humanity, i.e. human government comes from evil. God makes us free, therefore we are free.
The laws that god says to support are those which maintain the rights and freedom of all humanity; the Constitution enshrined those principles within it. However, while those principles are indeed in the Constitution, not everything in The Constitution upholds or follows through on those principles. The Constitution itself erects a throne of power that allows officers on high to dictate rules downward toward those below them on how they must live and allows and indeed requires other officers to steal money and property from people in order to enforce those rules, threatening violence and even death upon those who do not obey. It erected an entity that necessarily destroys the rights to life, liberty, and property of the individual, and thus destroys the freedom of the individual.And what powers were not given to the national government, were reserved to the state governments under their state constitutions to do virtually as they please, enjoying “parliamentary sovereignty” so long as they passed laws in the legislature granting themselves power to do such things. These constitutions, those of the states and the federal one, they erected a vast system of literal slavery, putting all who were claimed as citizens by the governments they constituted into bondage under those who occupied those seats of power. But, as these sections of the D&C clearly state, whatsoever does not maintain the rights and freedom of the individual human being, “constitutional” or not, and puts human beings in bondage to other human beings is of evil and is not to be befriended or upheld. This is also consistent with the message of D&C 134:2 & 5.
What these verses are saying, I believe, is that the “Constitution” and upholding it and all its articles, clauses, and words, is not the end goal; the end goal is upholding the freedom and rights of the individual, which principles are enshrined in the Constitution, and upholding those parts of the Constitution which protect those rights and freedom while we are made to be subject to said Constitution. Anything that violates those rights and freedom is evil & is to be opposed. Having a constitution giving authority of some people over the rest is indeed bondage and is not the end goal. Maintaining the rights and freedom of the individual is the end goal. Thus, the parts of the Constitution and laws of man that A.) violate the rights and freedom of the individual and make them a tool of others, putting them in bondage to others by letting them rule over them and stealing their property and violating their rights…these parts, they come from evil and are not to be befriended or supported by the people.
It could be said that God is basically saying, “if human government can obtain these ends, maintaining the rights and freedom of the individual, then support it; if not, oppose it and support whatever best protects said rights and freedom of the individual.” In that case, eradicating the thrones of power, i.e. human government, and existing in voluntarism and anarchy is the only thing that can sustain and maintain those rights and freedom. The thing is, God may have caused the Founding Fathers, or rather, allowed them, the most righteous he could find on the earth at that time, to establish the Constitution, knowing full well that humanity, stuck on this notion as they were and are that they must have human government, would thus not be ready to abandon human government for His ways of anarchy and voluntarism, just as the Hebrews under Moses’s care were not ready for the higher law and thus were given a lesser law till they demonstrated they were willing and ready for the higher. Therefore, taking imperfect, misguided humanity where it was, he allowed a form of human government to be established that also enshrined the principles of anarchy in it, and proceeded to tell humanity to focus on those principles of anarchy, i.e. protecting the rights and freedom of the individual (as demonstrated in sections 98 & 101 of the D&C). If humanity were to still insist on having human government in which some human beings rule over others, like the ancient Israelites who insisted on having a king over them, in the very least, support the laws of said governments that protect the rights and freedom of the individual. But it is my contention that God knew human government could not do this for long, protect the rights and freedom of the individual, given the nature of human beings to seek power over others and abuse said power. And we see that as our very reality today. What principles of protecting the rights and freedom of the individual that may exist in the Constitution, have been gutted over time since the establishment of the US Constitution, by way of congressional law, judicial interpretation, and executive enforcement and precedent, to the point where the federal, state, and local governments have given themselves the authority and power to violate pretty much every right and thus eradicate the freedom of the individual, making us slaves to those in authority over them by way of the Constitution. It is my contention that, in D&C 98 and 101, as well as 134, God was saying, “OK, fine, if you still insist on this human government stuff, in the very least support the laws that protect the rights and freedom of the individual, for those are my principles that are most important to follow.” Again, the message God is trying to give to humanity in these sections and verses, taking humanity where it is, is, in my mind, preparatory to receiving the higher law of anarchy and voluntarism, that protecting the rights and freedom of every individual so that they may not be in bondage to another is paramount and of more importance than having a government. I believe God was trying to tell us in these sections of the D&C in a round about way is that this whole human government thing wouldn’t work out in the end, as it destroys the rights and freedom of the individual, and that what is of the utmost importance for us to focus on and remember in the end is to seek to protect the rights and freedom of the individual so that every individual can be judged and held accountable according to their own actions and choices and not be said to have been the coerced footstool of others, having no agency for themselves.
Indeed, can you have some people be rulers over others, having the power & “authority” to violently take their property & call it taxes, murder people all over the globe and call it “war, casualties, & foreign diplomacy,” force you to do the murdering, force you to get THEIR permission to do virtually anything upon threat of violence toward you and call it “peace-keeping & regulation,” and NOT be said to be in bondage to said people? The Constitution, from the beginning, allowed for slavery, both of the race based chattel form & the nation-state tax, fee, & permit form, including conscription. It allowed some human beings to own other human beings, either in actual title or in action, while pretending to “take care of & protect them.” It allowed certain people, pretending to have just, divine authority (or as they called it, providence), to violate your rights to life, liberty, and property routinely, in order for them to maintain that power over you. And they have done so routinely, granting themselves the sole power to interpret said Constitution and thus grant themselves more and more power to violate more and more of your rights, enslave you further, and thus destroy more and more of your freedom as individuals. Can a constitution, or any form of human government that not only allows but owes its very existence to such rights violations, destruction of freedom, and enslavement of human beings to other human beings, can it be said to be protectors of those very rights and freedom they routinely violate in order to exercise their power and maintain their status as rulers over us? I think not. If you are asking me, it my opinion that the bit about supporting human government in D&C 98, 101, & 134, comes of man, of evil, and not of a perfectly just and merciful God, because that is what man has always known for much of his/her existence, human government in which some rule over others, i.e. slavery. What D&C 98, 101, and 134 say doesn’t make sense unless you focus on the anarchic principles of each section, that is, maintaining the rights and freedom of the individual from slavery and bondage to other human beings. And to maintain those rights and freedom of the individual, you cannot do so when you erect thrones of power with monopolies on violence and grant access to or place some people on said thrones so that they may steal, murder, torture, and destroy. You cannot be free from bondage and have your rights and freedom protected under such human governments. History and logic proves they are incompatible, for one leads to and indeed owes its very existence upon the destruction of the other. You cannot serve two masters, as it were, for you will love the one and hate the other. And I believe God is showing us this in the actual bits that come from Him in these sections of scripture, that just like Abraham would not find righteous people among Ur, these principles of individual rights and freedom cannot stand & long be protected under a system that elevates some people in power above others to physically and mentally rule over them & dictate their lives as to what they may and may not do.
I believe this is the message of these chapters: that whatever leads to the protection of individual rights and freedom ought to be befriended; that while bits of the Constitution that DO enshrine these principles ought to be befriended, the WHOLE of the Constitution and indeed any system that enslaves some people to others should not be befriended; that systems of human government in which some are given power over others to steal their property, dictate what they may and may not do with their lives (so long as they harm no one else in the process), imprison them for violation of said dictates, and even murder them, should not be befriended, are of evil, and are to be opposed. Thus we are left with anarchy, where EVERY individual is the only sovereign in their life, having complete control over their property and life decisions, that this is the ONLY way to ensure the rights and freedom of the individual are protected and upheld as much as possible. This, coupled with the idea that these scriptural sections were written and have been upheld by fallible human beings who were/are not raised in cultural vacuums, this the ONLY logical conclusions one can come to regarding these sections.
Whatsoever concerning the laws of men that does not protect the rights and freedom of the individual from being in bondage and being tools of others, is of evil. And it just so happens that NO “laws of men,” i.e. human government, protects these rights and freedom in full. And whatever violates these rights and freedom and enslaves some people to others ought not to be supported by those who follow God and HIS ways. The message is clear, to those who allow themselves to see it: anarchy is God’s way, i.e. the “Church of God;” human government is the way of Satan, i.e. “The Church of the Devil.”
God works through imperfect human beings as His mouthpieces. They are bound to make mistakes and get things wrong. Messages will be infected by the cultures those fallible human beings were raised in. But, like broken clocks, they will also get things right, and thus, it is up to us, as fellow sovereign human beings, to parse through the messages God gives to us through our fellow human beings and decider what is truly of Him and what is human fluff worthy of ignoring and opposing. Whether God comes down and tells us all, individually, or relies on our fellow human beings to try to convince us of these eternal truths and principles of peaceful living, the message is still open to the possibility of not being heard for cultural biases. But, with the individual gift of the Spirit, we as individuals can come to our own conclusion and knowledge concerning what is eternal truth and what is of flesh & Satan and thus of evil. But we have to let our minds be open to said inspiration so we can learn to recognize said eternal truths.
If the Prince of Peace be Jesus, and Jesus be the God of the old and New Testament, a representative of God the Father, it must needs follow that Jesus & thus the Father would want to achieve that end goal of peace through peaceful means. And if peace is to reign, it cannot be brought about non-peaceful means, through the violent thefts, kidnappings, false arrests/imprisonments, tortures, and murders of a system built upon the foundations of aggressive violence, doing its existence to said aggressive violence. Thus, logically, the way to peace is through peace, by allowing each individual sole control over their own life in the choices they make and sole control over the property they obtain along the way. This is anarchy. And if it be the only truly peaceful way of living, the only peaceful way of obtaining general peace between humanity, and if Jesus be the Prince of Peace, then anarchy is necessarily by way of logical conclusion, God’s way. Which means, Jesus nor the Father, being peaceful beings who enjoy their own individual sovereignty and wish us to enjoy our own individual sovereignty, cannot be in support of violent means supposedly meant to keep that peace. God, a being of peace and individual sovereignty, cannot be the author of human government built upon aggressive violence; that author is the enemy of God, the one who rebelled, having sought God’s glory and power to become a tyrant and rule over us in order to force us to do his will: that author can only Satan. In choosing and figuratively fighting for anarchy and the eradication of human government that inherently requires the destruction of the rights and freedom of the individual human beings and thus brings some people into bondage one to another, one is choosing and figuratively fighting for God and his way of peace. Peace can only be achieved when there is no coercive violence exercised by some upon others. So-called “peace” brought about by pacifying the individual human soul, coercing obedience through fear using threats of violence is a false imitation of the true peace that comes through voluntarism, love, and persuasion. It cannot last as it is only a facade of the real thing, like all that emanates from Satan, the author of imitative facade. Those who fight to maintain such human government built and reliant upon aggressive violence and threats thereof have been, at best tricked and misguided by the adversary, Satan, and at worst have actively chosen to be in league with him to the destruction of their own kind.
It is very possible that Joseph Smith himself, the writer of these sections in the D&C, raised as he was in the early Republic with all its propaganda celebrating the State and its violence…it’s very possible that his and his compatriot’s touch remains in these sections, that these sections contain both the truth of God (the focus on the rights and freedom of the individual from bondage to other human beings) and the fallacies of misguided and fallen flesh. I cannot accept that God, a perfect being, a man of peace and individual rights and freedom, would tell his servant and mouthpiece to all humanity to befriend and support whatever protects the rights and freedom of the individual while simultaneously telling that same servant to befriend the very entity and system that is built upon violating those rights and destroying that freedom, enslaving people to those in power. No, the message of these sections logically must needs be to befriend the principles of individuals rights and freedom found in the Constitution, the parts of the Constitution that do such, but not the thing that establishes a legal system of slavery that necessarily destroys those very rights and freedom, the human government itself.
The accuracy of the translations of the Bible in relation to the principles and stories taught in the Book of Mormon.
It is to remembered, as per 1 Nephi 14, that the Bible came forth out of the mouth of a Jew and it was correct, but was subsequently written down by many others into multiple languages and retranslated over and over again, arbitrarily compiled centuries later by a government and its established, state church, and was then again translated even further into a multitude of other languages by other governments and their established state churches. That the Bible has been purposefully or innocently yet still erroneously written down and translated is an extremely high possibility. That some good of the original would remain is likely inevitable, and that much had been added to it by human writers, translators, and publishers is also extremely likely. Thus, like the Book of Mormon and all scripture written and translated by fallible human beings, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments must be taken with many grains of salt knowing it’s history of compilation and translation by government officials with a vested interest in making it say whatever would stand to keep them in power over others. In short, I refuse to support the notion that the same God that delivered the 10 Commandments, which included commandments not to steal and not to murder, would later condone slavery, i.e. the stealing of an individual’s labor, property, and control of their body and the murder, i.e. stealing a man’s life from him, of his own people he brought out of Egypt solely for their making & worshipping a golden calf while Moses was up in the Mount with God for 40 days, wondering if he were still alive. It is illogical. There must either be context that was deliberately or mistakenly left out of the chapters in Exodus in the compilation and translation of the Old Testament Bible or mistranslated or purposefully altered to say something it didn’t originally say in the original Hebrew or whatever the original language was that it was written in. These issues, the fallibility of human scribes, compilers, and translators, the compiling of the Bible by government agents with a vested interest in producing a “holy text” for a state religion that supported their rule over the rest of humanity, and account for the illogicalities & discrepancies that are found in the Bible and even in the Book of Mormon.
My Kingdom is not of this world:
John 18:36
“Jesus answered, My akingdom is not of this bworld: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
Many might take this to mean that Jesus’s “kingdom” is not here, physically, on this planet, or at this specific time, but rather in Heaven, where he, the Father, and the angels dwell, after our time on earth passes away. This may have some truth to it, that particular interpretation. But another interpretation of Christ’s words to Pilate, that his “kingdom” is not of this world, that I believe is more persuasive and more logical and in harmony with the actual teachings of Christ when he says “my kingdom is not of this world,” what he really means is that the way Christ will run his “kingdom” or society will not be according to the ways of humanity as seen in this world, i.e. thru aggression and violence of dictators, kings, oligarchies, and empires that run on murder, theft, & slavery. Rather, Christ’s “kingdom,” or the societies that form in his name and receive his protection b y his power will be those who live according to Christ’s teachings of love, charity, forgiveness, logical and emotional persuasion, i.e. peace. This is what I believe Christ is trying to tell Pilate when he says his “kingdom” is not of this world…not that he’s speaking of heaven & his rule over heaven in the afterlife, but rather, that his society would be based on entirely different principles and ideas than those practices by the literal human kingdoms, nations, and empire of world. This is evidenced by the fact that Jesus never actually answers Pilate in saying, “yes, I AM the king of the Jews.” No, he merely says in response to Pilate’s question of whether he be a king or not, that that is what they, the Jews who handed him over to Pilate say of him and that is what Pilate says of him, not that he, Jesus, himself says such of himself. Jesus merely runs with Pilate’s understanding of his purpose or role; Pilate is told by the Jews that Jesus is the King of the Jews, Pilate is a Roman governor who understands the world he lives in and the territory he governs thru the lens of empire and monarchy; thus his question of whether Jesus is a king or not. It is how he understand the power structure & his and Jesus’s place in that Roman imperial world, having no knowledge of Jewish scripture & what a Messiah means. Thus, knowing full well how Pilate interprets Jesus’s position in that society, and that he has been told by the Jews who delivered him up that he pretends to be the king of the Jews, he thus runs with it and explains to Pilate his purpose in the way he understands, using the word “kingdom” solely because that is how Pilate understands the world and people in power in it, thru the lens of empire and monarchy. This does not mean, however, that Jesus is saying he is or will be a “king” in the earthly sense where he will be the dictator law giver over a society that he rules over by his will alone. It is simply Jesus saying to Pilate, you and they say I am a king, therefore, let me explain my purpose here from that framework since that is what you understand, and as such my “kingdom” is not one that practices or runs itself based upon the typical ways of aggressive violence and force by one or a few people over the many, i.e. enslavement. For, if it were, my followers would be fighting on my behalf, violently, to prevent me from being handed over to the Jews or the Roman Empire. But as his “kingdom” is not of the typical kind as has been seen throughout human history of government, and that it runs on completely different principles, peace, non-aggression, persuasion, love, charity, etc., it is thus “not of this world,” which means Christ himself will not be a “king” over it and thus it will not be a “kingdom” in the sense of how the world knows those words and government concepts. Instead, he will be a teacher, a guide, an elder brother who teaches his younger siblings, us, the righteous, his followers, how to live peacefully, harmoniously, and thus prosperously alongside each other, not ruling over us with an iron fist where his will alone is law, but rather, ruling together WITH us, ALONGSIDE us as he teaches us to be as he is and live as he does. Thus, Christ’s society will be one of anarchy and voluntarism, in which people who dwell in it with him are not his subjects, his play things to be acted upon, but rather, active actors who voluntarily choose to live as Christ does and be like him and thus live with him as an equal member of God the Father’s family, much as children in our world today grow to adulthood and become equals with their own parents.
Elective Kings in America? 2 Nephi 5
“King” Benjamin & Mosiah?
There is not much that is known between the time Nephi anoints a “king” over the his people before his death, according to their wishes and the time between the record picks up with “King” Benjamin some 200 years later, at least regarding the reigns of those “kings.” We do have words from Nephi’s line of posterity & family regarding those times, but they say very little on the actual “reigns” of those “kings” until the plates of Nephi were handed over the “King” Benjamin by the last of Nephi’s direct lineage, he having no children. But these words from Nephi’s lineage until the time of “King” Benjamin mostly pertain to spiritual matters, matters concerning Christ, & matters concerning how one should live their individual life, i.e. following the 10 commandments, the Law of Moses, refraining from sin, etc. It is useful and absolutely important information & principles worthy of consideration & study, to be certain. But, the narrative of the years from the time Nephi anoints a “king”, according to the desires of his people, before he dies to the time of this “King” Benjamin is sparse as to the actual system of “government” if there was one, or rather, what life looked like under the “reign” of these “kings” and what type of power they exercised over the people, if any at all. We do know that there were continuous battles between the Nephites and Laminates, the Laminates always being the aggressors, and that the people of Nephi fled the lands of their inheritance further into the wilderness, going northward, putting as much distance between them and their aggressing Nephite brethren until they came upon another group of inhabitants in the area brought over to the Americas from Jerusalem in a similar fashion as that of the family of Lehi. These people, named the Mulekites, were brought over around the time of of the Biblical King Zedekiah and the sacking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, so probably not too long after the time Lehi & his family arrived. They had their own civilization and when the people of Nephi arrived in their lands, they eventually merged together as one people, choosing Benjamin to be their “king” or their leader. But what power these “kings” actually wielded isn’t really explained until this “King” Benjamin, wherein the explanation of his “reign” does not really seem like a “reign” of a “king” at all, at least according to the history of monarchs and kingdoms we are familiar with today in European history and the history of other monarchical lands outside of Europe.
The first glimpse that we see that perhaps “king” in the way that most people, especially most people of European ancestry understand the term is not the best of terms to be used to describe these leaders in the Book of Mormon comes way back in 2nd Nephi 5:18, just after Nephi & his people separate from their brethren the Laminates who continually try to kill Nephi and assume power over everyone since they are the “elder brothers,” & flee into the wilderness. Verse 18 says:
18 And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power.
The people who followed Nephi into the wilderness desire that he be their king, which thing Nephi did not wish to do; instead, he was their leader, their teacher, their spiritual guide, teaching them how to live as individuals amongst each other and how to cooperate and build a civilization together. He was also their “protector,” as seen in 2 Nephi 5: 14 & 2nd Nephi 6:2, wherein Nephi’s brother, Jacob, speaks to those who followed them into the wilderness away from the Laminates, and recounts how Nephi, whom the people looked to as a “king” & a protector, anointed him as another teacher to Nephi’s people. Now it’s very specific that Nephi refused to be the people’s “king,” yet he did what he could for them in teaching them the ways of God and teaching them how to protect themselves and work together to build a society, including housing and growing crops and animal husbandry. The people looked to his as their “king,” as their “protector,” their spiritual & temporal “guide” or “teacher,” but there is no mention of Nephi holding any violent or aggressive power over them. Indeed, the way Nephi’s leadership is described is that of something like a warrior-farmer sage, someone who teaches the people wisdom, helps them to learn to protect and care for themselves, aids them in defending themselves by fighting right alongside them, while taking nothing form them in return, building his own house, sewing his own crops, tending his own animals, and taking care of his own needs and those of his family. But the key part is that there is no compulsion, no aggression from Nephi towards his people in violently forcing his ways upon them and taking their substance from them as his own so he need not work with his own hands. By all accounts, Nephi’s “kingship” mirrored that of the later “King” Benjamin, wherein Benjamin fulfilled the same role as a warrior-farmer sage, laboring to protect his people by fighting alongside them in their wars with the Laminates, teaching them to live the peaceful ways of Christ and the Law of Moses, which pointed toward Christ and his ways of living, laboring for his own needs and care instead of levying taxes and stealing the people’s property to take for his own so that he might not have the labor and produce for himself. More shall be said in more detail on on Benjamin’s “reign” shortly, but suffice it to say that from all appearances, from Nephi down to Benjamin, the Nephite “kings” do not match the type of king as described in 1 Samuel Chapter 8 in the Bible, nor do they match what is commonly understood as “kings” or “monarchs” in our modern day parlance, wherein one man has dictatorial power over a whole territory filled with his “subjects,” whom he pilfers for his own sustenance & growth of his power & realm, wherein all belongs to him and his word is law, to be followed upon pain of severe punishment, i.e.l aggression against the offending individual, his/her body, and his/her rights as an individual. This is not the type of “kings” we see in the Nephite society. When it says that they were anointed as “kings and rulers” over the people, these words, “kings,” “rulers,” “over the people” need to be interpreted in a different manner, for these kings, whether they had coercive power over the Nephite people or not (such is never said), they did not use it. Their “reigns” as “kings” were more like guidance by teachers and spiritual and temporal sages or instructors.
The next we hear of the “reign” of the Nephite “kings” comes in the Book of Jarom, which entry takes place some 200 years after the death of Nephi & the beginning of the “reign” of the “kings.” In Jarom 1:7 it says:
7 And it came to pass that they came many times against us, the Nephites, to battle. But our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; and they taught the people the ways of the Lord; wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands, and began to fortify our cities, or whatsoever place of our inheritance.
8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.
9 And thus being prepared to meet the Lamanites, they did not prosper against us. But the word of the Lord was verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land.
10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land.
11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them.
12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance.
Like Nephi, these “kings” of the Nephites were more akin to warrior-farmer sages who taught the Nephites to live peacefully and prosperously, building civilizations and societies and all manner of things needed to build & protect them, including weapons ion war and how to use them, and fought alongside the Nephite people when they were attacked by the Lamanites. They were teachers, instructors, and wise protector neighbors. There is never any mention of the compulsion, taxation, prisons, murder, and slavery that accompany the typical images of “kings” and “monarchs” like we know them today from European and other world history. These “kings” were not King George III of Britain, nor King Charles 1 of England. They weren’t even King Saul, David or the other Kings of Israel of the Bible. From all accounts it seems that, though they were looked upon by the Nephite people as “kings,” they were anything but. From all accounts, it seems the societies they guided and taught as teachers and instructors instead of ruling over as dictators were more anarchic and voluntaryist than anything else. The people of Nephi voluntary chose to follow their counsels. And those that chose not to, were free to leave, as occurred during the time of “King” Benjamin’s “reign” where some Nephites voluntarily left & were left alone in their choice by the Nephites to return to live with the Lamanites. From all accounts, it appears that the Nephite society under the “reign” of their “kings” was quite anarchic and voluntarist, resembling nothing of the aggressive, violent, coercive reigns of the Jewish/Israeli kings, the Pharaohs, the Persian dictators like Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, the dictatorship of the Roman emperors & imperial governors, or the later European monarchs.
Perhaps some critics will look at the preceding verses from Jarom chapter 1, specifically verse 10, wherein it says that the prophets did “threaten” the people of Nephi with destruction off the face of the land by the Laminates if they did not obey the commandments of God, and say, “Aha! Here we see the coercive aggression in the Nephite society! These prophets, these leaders of the people, they threatened the people to behave or else be destroyed! They threatened violence if they did not obey!” But this is not an accurate reading of the verse & the surrounding context. The verse & surrounding context says that the people would be destroyed off the face of the earth by the attacking Laminates, SOMETIME, if they did not keep the commandments of God, commandments such as don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit fraud (bear false witness), don’t covet your neighbor’s property, etc. This was no more a “threat” than a parent warning a toddler not to touch a hot stove as the result would be a painful burn. There is no threat of violence upon disobedience in either case. There is merely warnings of natural consequences of what would happen if certain choices were made, just like warning a person not to go out in the ocean on stormy day with large, turbulent waves & and tidal surges that could easily lead to their drowning. These warnings of natural consequences that would result from certain actions/choices have nothing in common with government officers who threaten violence upon slaves’s bodies and their property if they do not obey the arbitrary dictates of the ruling class who issue them for the very purpose of taking other people’s property for themselves to benefit from so they do not need to work. Such criticisms are easily explained away.
Now it’s true, these “kings” could have exercised aggressive authority over and on the people of Nephi, which simply was not discussed in their history written down on the plates passed down by Nephi’s descendants and these “kings.” This is entirely possible. But we must go off what the record itself says, and there is no evidence, at least as of yet in the narrative, that this did indeed occur. Without evidence of it, it can only be guessed at that it could have possible occurred. But without such evidence, I won’t entertain such conjectures herein other than to so it’s possible, but there is no evidence of it, at least not as of yet. But, rest assured such abuse of aggressive authority of the Nephite people will come in time in the Nephite and Laminates narrative wherein the “kings” assume unjust, tyrannical authority over the people and begin to pilfer, murder, and enslave them.
But returning to what the record DOES say about these Nephite “kings,” the best description of them comes from “King” Benjamin’s “reign.” In Mosiah 2, Benjamin knows he is not long for this world and issues a “proclamation” for the Nephite people to gather together at the temple to hear Benjamin’s parting words for them as their “king,” i.e. protector and teacher. There is no evidence this proclamation was mandatory; rather, it appears those who gathered together to hear Benjamin speak gathered voluntarily. By all appearances the people gathered willingly to hear their teacher, leader, and protector speak his last words to them, out of love & respect for him and the good he did for and with them. Benjamin describes his “reign” in detail in Mosiah 2. He says:
10 I have not commanded you to come up hither that ye should fear ame, or that ye should think that I of myself am more than a mortal man.
11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and aconsecrated by bmy father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.
12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to aspend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought bgold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;
13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—
14 And even I, myself, have alabored with mine own bhands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be claden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might aboast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear bconscience before God this day.
16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.
17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn awisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the bservice of your cfellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to aserve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?
19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to athank your heavenly bKing!
Some critics may try to point to the Words of Mormon, verse 15-16 as evidence that “King” Benjamin and perhaps the other Nephite “kings” exercised unjust aggressive, coercive authority as “monarchs” over the people of Nephi in their station as “kings.” These verses are as follows:
15 And it came to pass that after there had been false aChrists, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes;
16 And after there had been afalse prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes; and after there having been much contention and many dissensions away bunto the Lamanites, behold, it came to pass that king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy cprophets who were among his people
They may say, these “false Christs” and “false prophets,” “preachers,” and “teachers” were “punished” for their “crimes,” and thus had aggressive authority exercised upon them by “King” Benjamin and the previous “kings,” unjustly so because they were only using their freedom of speech and & freedom of conscience, their individual rights to say what they believed. It’s quite possible that this is the case. These words, that these “false Christs” and “false prophets/teachers/preachers” were “punished according to their crimes” COULD be interpreted to mean that the Nephites themselves or their “king(s)” executed these punishments on them for violating some positive law issued by the “king” for believing and preaching things thought to be untrue and false, religiously/spiritually by the Nephite society. This is all possible. But the evidence in the surrounding context, i.e. the previous books in the Book of Mormon appear to show a different interpretation of these words, an interpretation that does not indicate that it was these “kings” executing some punishment on these false teachers/Christs/preachers/prophets according to some aggressive, coercive positive law or decree of theres. Another interpretation of these words could just as easily be that these false Christs/teachers/preachers/prophets were allowed to speak their words and beliefs, and preach their lies among the people, and were punished not by men, but by God Himself for being ripe in their iniquity, i.e. their “crimes.” Evidence for this interpretation lies in the Book of Jacob, chapter 7, wherein Jacob, Nephi’s younger brother, contends with an anti-Christ named Sharem. This Sharem came amongst the Nephite society and began to preach that there would be no Christ and that the religious teachers like Jacob & his brother Joseph and others were teaching the Nephite people falsehoods regarding the future coming of Christ and not teaching them to practice the Law of Moses correctly. Sharem is allowed to go around preaching his beliefs and accusations, of his own free will, and seeks out Jacob to try to debate with him and prove Jacob wrong publicly about his preachings of the future coming of Christ and all he would do for humanity. Jacob, in this debate, allows Sharem to say his piece, and then proceeds to confound him in his illogicalities and lies, showing how the scriptures, i.e. the Plates of Brass retrieved by Nephi from Laban by in Jerusalem, which Shared says he believes, preach all throughout them of the coming of Christ and that the very law of Moses and all it’s rituals of animal sacrifice all point to Christ and his future sacrifice and atonement for the sins of humanity by the shedding of his innocent blood. Jacob shreds Sharem in this debate, and Shared, knowing he is defeated, logically, tempts God by demanding Jacob give him a sign showing proof of the what he says. Now Jacob had just given him proof after proof of all Shares tried to deny concerning Christ and the Holy Ghost and such, and Jacob knew Sharem would still likely not believe even if he had his sign, unless that sign was something significant enough like Sharem himself being struck by the power of God. Jacob proceeded to say, I won’t tempt God by demanding a sign of him for someone who will likely not believe it anyway, but if God see fit to give you the sign you demand, then so be it. And God DID give Shares his sign; Shares was struck with some kind of physical ailment that made him fall got the ground and become deathly ill, to the point where he died a few days later. Jacob nor anyone else, much less the “king” ever laid their hands on Sharem. Sharem was “punished according to his crime” by God Himself, his crime being not only denying Christ and thus the ways of Christ, i.e. non-aggression, peace, love, charity, justice, and mercy, but attempted to get the rest of the Nephite people to abandon the ways of Christ as well; and when he had been given proof of his errors, he tempted God further, demanding a sign that he knew he would never believe unless it was something severe enough, like a blow to his life and health, to convince him of the errors of his ways. Throughout the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible, God said to his covenant people that inasmuch as they followed in the ways of God and the coming Christ, and did not commit sin, i.e. murders, thefts, fraud, enslavements, and other forms of aggression, they would prosper in the land of their inheritances and be protected by the power of God. But when they began to “sin.” i.e. commit aggressions against each other, becoming murderers, thieves, frauds, and slavers, and refused to repent, becoming ripe in their iniquity, then they would no longer receive the protection of God and would be destroyed, either by God himself or by some other means, like an invading force like Nebuchadnezzar or the Lamanites. No one in the Nephite society aggressed against Sharem, much less “punished” him for his “crime,” not Jacob, not the “king,” not anyone. God punished Sharem for his crime, and gave him the sign he demanded, a sign that he knew Sharem couldn’t deny; and indeed, Sharem did believe & attempted to repent, after being struck down by the power of God with whatever physical ailment he was given that killed him several days later, saying he had been deceived by Satan and lied and attempted to commit fraud amongst the people in getting them to deny Christ. Maybe it was a heart attack or stroke? Who knows. But the point is, no one amongst the Nephite population laid their hands on Sharem nor aggressed against him, nor exercised any kind of power over him to “punish” him. He was given full freedom to speak his mind and attempt to commit said fraud on the people of Nephi, and was defeated by Jacob exercising his own rights of speech and conscience to counter his attempted fraud.
Thus, it is highly likely that these “false Christs/teachers/preachers/prophets that came amongst the people of Nephi under the “reign” of “King” Benjamin were similarly allowed to preach and teach their ideas, and were debated by the religious teachers of that time, possibly Benjamin himself, like Jacob did with Sharem, and that it was God Himself that punished them for their crimes of attempting to fraudulently get the people to deny Christ and commit iniquity and actual crimes of aggression against others. It is highly likely that this “King” Benjamin did not lay hands on these false prophets and thus did not exercise any kind of aggressive compulsion or violence upon them, thus making him quite unlike what most understand a “king” to be in our day in age and throughout most of old world history.
Further evidence that this is the case, that the Nephite “kings” did not exercise any kind of aggressive, compulsive authority on their people in the form of what we know as “government” today, but rather, were more warrior-farmer-civilization building sages followed & learned from willingly by the Nephite people in an anarchic, voluntaristic system of society comes from the fact that the Nephites never once, at least up to this point in time, aggressed against their brethren, the Laminates in attacking them and punishing them for their unbelief in Christ. It was always the Laminates who attacked the Nephites, at least up to this point in the Book of Mormon record, some 200-100 years before Christ’s birth, with the Nephites using violence solely to defend themselves against the aggressive attacks by their Laminate brethren. If the “kings” of the Nephites were “punishing” unbelievers and “false prophets” and such amongst Nephite society for their beliefs, or rather, their “crimes” of unbelief, then why did they not do the same with the brethren, the Laminates, going to war against them as the aggressors to punish them for their “crime” of unbelief in Christ? Indeed, the record so far shows that the Nephites instead tried to use peaceful persuasion with the Laminates to get them to come voluntarily back into the family fold and back onto the “right moral track” by believing in Christ & keeping the Law of Moses and 10 Commandments with the Nephites. The Laminates, of course, refused, and instead delighted in murder, including the attempted murder of the Nephites by coming to war against them so often.
So, from all appearances thus far in the record, these Nephite “kings” seem not like “kings” at all, according to how we understand monarchs today given the history of the world with its governments. Rather, they sound like they were “rulers” like Nephi himself was, i.e. teachers, protectors, guides, sages, etc. who were willingly and voluntarily followed and listened to by the Nephite people in some form of anarchistic and voluntaristic society. They were called “kings” probably because that is the cultural framework from which the Nephites understood, having been descended from the Jews in the time of the reign of actual tyrannical kings/monarchs in the Middle East, and having been taught from the Brass Plates, which gave a record of the Jews & the Tribes of Israel from the beginning of the creation of man up to the time of King Zedekiah when Lehi and his family and the Mulekites fled Jerusalem so as to escape the sacking of it by another king, Nebuchadnezzer. But they weren’t really “kings” at all, not at all like Zedekiah and his predecessors who wickedness and tyranny over the people Jeremiah lamented at the same time as Lehi, or the conquering invader king, Nebuchadnezzar.
Now, again, what we have is a record of what the Nephite “kings” did and did not do, in terms of their own actions as individuals during their “reigns,” how they acted during their “reigns.” But, we still don’t have much information regarding what political power, if any, they wielded. They behaved remarkably well as “kings,” what6ever real political power they did have at their disposal, in an anarchistic, voluntaristic fashion, using no apparent aggression or violent coercion on their people. Now, it’s entirely possible they DID have that political power, i.e. aggressive, violent coercive power over the Nephite people to make laws and enforce them by violence. It’s entirely possible they held such power but refused to use it, being righteous and being Christlike and thus not doing so, relying upon voluntarism and persuasion, laboring for their own subsistence & doing all they did for their people without pay. Or they may not have held, much less wielded any true political power. The Book of Mormon is mostly silent on such issues up to this point. However, as we shall see coming up next, their “reigns” are contrasted with the reign of the tyrannical, wicked King Noah, another Nephite king who was an extreme despot, ruling with an iron fist over his people. And it is in this contrast between the “reigns” of the Christlike Nephite “kings” and the reign of the Satantic, wicked King Noah that the Nephites learned an important anarchic lesson about government which will play out in the reshaping of the Nephite government from monarchy to a “democratic” “judges” system similar to that of the Hebrew judges system of old except it remains aggressively coercive at its foundation. And it is based off this contrast between the Nephite “kings” and King Noah, and the eventual transition to the judges system of government that we see that it is likely the Nephite “kings” were truly kings, having true political power, but refusing to exercise it, being Christlike and righteous. The coming words of “King” Mosiah will evidence this as he readies the people for the transition from monarchy to the judges sytem.
Now this King Noah was the son of one Zeniff, a Nephite who was part of a larger group of Nephites who were zealously desirous to inherit the land of their first inheritance down amongst the Lamanites, right smack in the middle of Laminates territory. Why they felt this zealous desire to go and settle and try to build a society in the middle of Laminate territory is not clear nor explained, other than they zealously desired it. The Nephites, including this group, knew well the hatred the Laminates had for their brethren, the Nephites, having experienced many wars with the aggressing, murderous Laminates coming into their territories even in Zarahemla to try to conquer and subjugate or else kill them, tho they were driven back by the Nephites every time. So what made this group of Nephites want to leave the safety of Zarahemla and go back to the older areas where Lehi and his family first landed and the Laminates now dominated is unclear. It wasn’t a smart move, as shall be seen. But they did it anyway. There was one group first group who set out, and getting lost in the wilderness, got to arguing about which way to go and started killing each other over the situation of being lost and not knowing which way to go. There was likely a power squabble of some sort. What few survivors remained returned to the Zarahemla. But, Zeniff and his group got more Nephites to join then and they eventually made it to an area in Laminate territory known as Shimlon. The people following Zeniff made him their king by the “voice of the people,” and Zeniff commenced with contacting the Laminates king of the area so they could get his permission to settle and start a community. Now Zeniff was not necessarily a wicked man; on the contrary, while he may have been over zealous and not entirely wise in his endeavors to build up a society among the Laminates knowing full well their hatred for & murderous past treatment of the Nephites, he was, on the whole, a mostly righteous, Christ following man who endeavored to do good to others and for his group of Nephites. The Laminate king of the area, King Laman, granted Zeniff and his people this request and kicked a bunch of Laminates out of the area Zeniff’s people would build up. This should have been Zeniff’s first hint at just who and what type of person he was dealing with, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that a Laminate king kicking a bunch of his own people off their lands & property to make way for a bunch of Nephites wanting to live on the land was something of which to be very suspecting of. Zeniff may have been on the whole righteous and just enough, but he cannot be said to be the most intelligent of individuals. Now King Laman only did this so that he, over time, could enslave the Nephites under Zeniff so as to steal what they produced, the Nephites being industrious, so he and his people could live in ease and laziness off of the Zeniff and his people’s hard labor. After some time, King Laman attempted to enact his enslavement plan by stirring up his Laminate subjects to attack the Nephites. But Zeniff, though not the brightest bulb in the shed, was a righteous enough king who followed the commandments of God enough to warrant God’s protection, and thus he and his people were able to, with the help and strength of God, withstand the Laminates attacks and repel them back to their own lands. This occurred a number of times, and each time Zeniff and his people were victorious in their defensive battle, due to their righteousness in following the commandments of God & not being aggressive tyrants like King Laman. But this all changed when Zeniff grew old & anointed his son Noah to rule as king in his stead; and it is herein that the Nephites get their first real taste of tyranny under a monarch and their first real first hand lesson in the dangers of erecting thrones of power. Sadly, they don’t learn the lessons they should have learned from such experiences, but they did at least learn enough of a lesson to be wary of monarchy, at least.
The first chance Noah got, he abandoned all the commandments of God, replaced all of his father’s priests & religious teachers with tyrannical, greedy, lazy aggressors such as himself, and started exercising unjust, aggressive dominion over their people, using threats of aggression and violence if they didn’t pay their taxes. Noah then used this stolen wealth to build all sorts of luxurious buildings for himself and his new “priests” & live lavishly at his people’s expense. He used the stolen lucre to finance a personal guard for himself, and together, with his priests, they turned the people from the paths and ways of Christ towards those of Satan, acting as their Laminates brethren did, aggressors against their fellow man, murderers, thieves, slavers, frauds, torturers, and tyrants. King Noah did of course erect defenses around his city and territory, but he did not so much for the protection of his people so much as for the protection of himself and his luxurious little kingdom he was building off the backs of his people. If he felt any need to protect his people, it was likely so he could keep them alive as tax slaves for his own continued benefit and life of laziness & tyranny, not at all unlike our modern day politicians & government ruling class elitists. But regardless of the fortifications he built & the precautions he took with his guards, the Lamanites, due to the turn to wickedness the Nephites took, eventually came & conquered and enslaved Noah and his Nephite group in the same fashion as Noah had enslaved his own people, using them as tax slaves. But this did not happen before God sent a prophet among the people of Noah to cry repentance & warn them of the coming enslavement of their society by the Laminates if they did not repent of their evil, aggressive ways. This is a theme all throughout LDS Christian scripture. God wants his human children to be happy and joyous, and the way to do so is by following his commandments, the ways of Christ, i.e. non-aggression, peace, persuasion, industry, justice, mercy, charity, and love for each other. When his human children begin to err & turn to wickedness, he sends prophets among them to warn them to turn back to repentance or else face the pure justice of God, i.e. the wrath of God that would come upon them for their continued murders, thefts, enslavements, and all manner of other types of aggression towards their fellow human beings. This time was no different. The man sent by God was named Abinadi, an apparent nobody who was righteous enough in his own individual daily living to be called by God to call his Nephite siblings under Noah, including Noah, to repentance or else face the natural consequences of their aggressive living, did just that. He went among the people & preached repentance to all. It’s important to note that all of God’s prophets who have cried repentance to a wicked people have been nobodies, powerless people of no social position who were made mighty in word and deed by their following God’s commandments, i.e. living anarchically and voluntaristically by following the ways of Christ. Christ himself and his 12 Apostles were such people, of the lesser sort in Jewish society, nobodies without wealth and earthly, government/high social power. Abindadi was no different. He was a nobody who came, did his preaching, and went. Word spread to Noah and his ruling class priests of Abinadi’s preachings against their wickedness and they sent out police or guards to arrest him and bring him before them. Abinadi escaped and went into hiding. Some time later, he returned disguised and commenced again with his preaching repentance. This time, he was arrested, put in chains, and cast into prison. Noah’s priests convinced him to drag Abinadi before them so they could “question him,” i.e. abuse and accuse him fraudulently and falsely of misleading the people & punish him for it. He was hauled in before them in chains, wherein they sought to catch him as the Pharisees sought to catch Jesus centuries later, attempting to find some trumped up, false “justification” for murdering him. For, they were a people who delighted in the shedding of blood of others, aggressive murderers who murdered according to their own wills, so they could continued to live their lives in aggressiveness and sin. But their plans to entrap Abinadi went horribly wrong for them, for not only did he withstand their entrapments, but he thrashed them in an awesome rebuke of their iniquity and their fraudulent activities as “priests” who claimed to follow the Law of Moses but in actuality knew nothing of it nor it purpose. Indeed, the parallels between Abinadi and Jesus Christ himself amazing are many. Abindadi’s rebukes of their iniquity were so strong that even King Noah himself was entirely afraid of him and wished nothing more to than to end his righteous rebukes of their iniquity and get him out of his sight, preparing to release him. But Noah’s priests, wicked, proud, and murderously cold hearted to the core, persuaded Noah to murder him by burning him alive, persuading him, appealing to his pride and love of power, that Abinadi must be murdered as he challenged the king’s “authority” by testifying of his and the ruling class priests’ iniquity and aggressions. Abinadi, before being killed by the flames told the murderous Noah and his evil, murderous priests that what they did to him would be done to them. And indeed, this did occur; after the murder of Abinadi, the people of Noah rebelled against him and his tyrannical rule, and just as Noah was about to be killed by one Gideon upon the high tower Noah had built to survey the surrounding lands, he spotted the Laminate armies coming to invade and conquer them, just as Abinadi had said. Noah and his priests, the cowards that they were, fled, telling all the men to leave the women and children behind and flee with them. Many did flee into the wilderness with them. But those who did, captured Noah and, for his crimes against them, he was burned alive like Abinadi said he would be. His evil priests escaped further into the wilderness, where they would cause trouble for the Nephites later on in the story. Those who remained in the city were either slaughtered by the Lamanites, or spared, and those who fled returned. The Laminates proceeded to enslave the Nephite group, making them tax slaves. While Noah had taken 1/5 of all his subjects owned, the Laminates, with Noah son Limhi now on the Nephite throne, took from them 1/2 of all they owned, and placed guards around the Nephite city of Shimlon so they could not escape into the wilderness and could be held in perpetuity as tax slaves. Just as Noah had taken 1/5 of all the Nephite people under his tyrannical rule had in their possession to build his luxurious palaces and buildings and fund his own personal guard, the Laminates did the same to them, taking 1/2 of all they owned to go to the Laminate king and fund the guards set around the city to keep the Nephite people there as perpetual tax slaves.
Now, the teachings of Abinadi did not fall entirely on deaf ears. There was one of the wicked priests of Noah, a young man named Alma who believed the words of Abinadi and repented of his sins and changed his ways to live according to the Christ focused Law of Moses and 10 Commandments as Abinadi had explained them. Alma tried to persuade King Noah to release Abinadi and let him go free, but this infuriated Noah, causing Alma to flee and hide with Noah sending guards out to follow him so as to murder Alma. Alma hid and began teaching the Nephite people in the city the words of Abinadi, doing so secretly under the nose of King Noah and his guards, for he knew Noah would kill them all if he caught them learning the words of Abinadi after he had just murdered him for rebuking the king, his priests, and the people for their evil ways. But, when they could not longer do so safely within the city itself, they began meeting outside of the city at a place called Mormon, where under Alma’s tutelage, some 400 people were persuaded by Abinadi and Alma’s words of repentance and righteous, Christ like living, and agreed to live according to those ways of Christ, as the Nephites up in the land of Zarahemla had been doing this entire time. Eventually King Noah had spies throughout the area and discovered that Alma, his repentant priest, was converting people to words and ways of Abinadi and Christ outside the city boundaries and sent a small army out to capture and murder them all. Alma and his group of converts got word of this and fled into the wilderness for their lives so that the army of King Noah did not find them and returned to the city empty handed. And thus began the rebellion of the people, lead by Gideon against King Noah described above.
It is of immense worth to contrast the way of life of the Zarahelma Nephites and the Nephites who joined Alma with those of the Nephites under the evil King Noah. Having already looked in detail at how the Nephites in Zarahemla lived under their “kings,” who didn’t actually behave as kings typically do, like King Noah did, we’ll instead look in more detail at how Alma and his people lived together as a society both before & while on the run in the wilderness from King Noah. This is important as their social group forms an anarchist/voluntarist society based very much on mutualism and free markets, where there is no ruler exercising aggressive power over them to coerce them to live a certain way. They were, in pretty much every way, anarchists, and they were successful in doing so, for they lived according to anarchist principles, the very same principles of Christ like living we have been discussing so far this entire time & contrasting with the evil, tyrannical regimes of government like those of the Kinds of Judah, the Lamanites, and the regime of King Noah. Alma’s people’s social living is described in detail in Mosiah 18. They firstly organized themselves into groups of what are best called schools, or learning groups, wherein every 50 people would have a priest, or rather, a moral teacher to guide them and help keep them on the right paths of living righteously according to the principles of non-aggression and voluntarism. These teachers were hand picked by Alma according to their righteousness and wisdom and ordained by him, Alma having been given authority from God to do so. Secondly, these priests were to, like the Nephite “kings” in Zarahemla, labor for their own subsistence and received nothing in payment for their teaching of the people. They were to teach the people voluntarily, out of love for them, and were not to receive payment for their teaching and labors on their behalf. They were to serve their schools of 50 people & work together with them to help everyone prosper and succeed. Thirdly, the people were to assemble together in their schools with their teachers often, as often as possible, but at least once a week on the “Sabbath,” in order to learn from from their teachers and each other, and become one people by learning who needed succoring and who could be of help to one another. Fourthly, they were instructed to reptent, live like Christ by following the Law of Moses and the 10 Commandments, which pointed to Christ, and most importantly to have
no acontention one with another, but that they should look forward with bone eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts cknit together in unity and in love one towards another.
And just as importantly, They were also to
27 impart of their substance, aevery one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.
28 And thus they should impart of their asubstance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.
29 And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did awalk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.
Contrast this with the system of government Noah forced upon his people, taking 1/5 of all they had in taxes so that he and his “priests” could glut themselves and live luxuriously in gold palaces and sit on gold thrones and look down their noses upon the people they had enslaved, whoring it up with as many women as they wished, eating gluttonously and drinking as much wine as they could, living “riotously” as the BOM describes it, doing little to nothing to actually serve or protect the people save it be to build some towers for spying not he Laminates and putting together an army in case of invasion. Again, this wasn’t done so much as to protect the Nephites people under Noah out of love or truly caring for their lives, but rather, so as to protect the lives of the people as perpetual tax slaves for the king and his “priests” to continue to glut off of and to protect themselves most importantly. Contrast the social living of Alma and his people, the “People of the Lord,” The “Church of Christ,” as they called themselves, with the social living of the Nephites under King Limhi, who were all tax slaves to the Laminates who set guards around their tax slave plantation to keep them there and took 1/2 of all they owned. The people under Noah in their luxurious city turned to civil war and rebellion, tiring of the slavery and tyranny Noah heaved upon them, turning to bloodshed and then being attacked by the invading Laminates forces. The people of Alma thrived and survived in the wilderness under anarchy, a free market, and mutual aid. Indeed, as shall be seen in the coming chapters, in Mosiah 23 in particular, the people of Alma even sought to make him king over them, which Alma utterly refused to do, insisting on persuading them to maintain the anarchic, voluntaristic, mutualist form of their society. Let us turn briefly to his words on the matter.
Having escaped from the tyranny of King Noah’s people & fled into the freedom of the wilderness, the people of Alma settled in a spot and began to homestead it, sowing crops, building buildings, and otherwise starting a society and community together. In doing so, the people asked Alma to be their king. Alma’s reply is a wise one, both his time and for our own that we should learn from, for Alma had learned his lessons through repentance of the dangers of erecting a throne of aggressive power and that it was best to NOT do so so as to avoid the tyrannies experienced under King Noah. Alma, having been a priest and thus a part of the ruling class of King Noah’s government, he knew full well that in erecting a throne of power, even if otherwise good people sought it, it could very easily corrupt them or very easily be taken over by an already corrupted, wicked person for him/her to wield for his/her own benefit, enslaving the people in the process with its taxes and guards (police/armies), like King Noah and the Laminates kings. Alma knew the dangers well from sore, firsthand experience of the dangers of a throne of power to never let one be erected again so long as he was this people’s teacher and leader/guide/advisor. Indeed, he was much wiser than those Nephites in the land of Zarahemla with their “kings”, wise like unto Nephi himself. But let’s let Alma speak for himself, as found in Mosiah 23:
6 And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people.
7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.
8 Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king.
9 But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore repentance;
10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, and has made me an instrument in his hands in bringing so many of you to a knowledge of his truth.
11 Nevertheless, in this I do not glory, for I am unworthy to glory of myself.
12 And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by king Noah, and have been in bondage to him and his priests, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity.
13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.
14 And also trust no one to be your ateacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.
15 Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them.
16 And now, Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church.
17 And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.
18 Therefore they did watch over their people, and did nourish them with things pertaining to righteousness.
19 And it came to pass that they began to prosper exceedingly in the land; and they called the land Helam.
20 And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam.
There are some VERY important lessons and principles in these few verses, principles that are just as important to us today as it was to them in Alma’s time.
Alma says it is NOT expedient that they should have a king; it was not wise nor safe to esteem one person above another, to put them in a place of aggressive power above others. Why? Because King Noah. You can’t guarantee you will always have just, righteous people on the throne. So, best not to have a throne at all. Alma was an anarchist, plain and simple. The word didn’t exist back then, but everything he is saying in these few verses is pure and simple anarchy/voluntarism. Indeed, we could just as easily replace the word “king” in these verses with “president,” “politician,” “judge,” “bureaucrat,” “police” or just plain “government.,” and the same meanings and principles would hold. Let us do so:
7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a government; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a government.
8 Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your governors it would be well for you to have a government.
9 But remember the iniquity of Government A & its ruling class of politicians, judges, & police force/armies; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore repentance;
12 And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by Government A & its ruling class, and have been in bondage to it, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity.
13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of Government A and its ruling class, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a governor over you.
We are counseled to liken the scriptures unto ourselves. So let us do so.
If one looks closely at our society today in our current, modern time, which Nephrite society does ours resemble? Does the United States, or any country for that matter, with their empires, bloating standing armies, layers upon layers upon layers of taxation, prisons a’plenty, ruling classes of “kings and priests,” i.e. politicians, judges, presidents, governors, legislators, and bureaucrats, and guards/cops everywhere to enforce all the innumerable “laws” and taxes of the ruling class, resemble the Nephite societies of Alma or those under Benjamin and Mosiah in Zarahemla? Or do our modern day “nation states” resemble more the parasitic, murderous, thieving, lazy, cowardly, warring, conquering, and otherwise aggressive slaver societies of the Lamanites, the Kings of Judah, and the Nephites under King Noah? I think the answer is plain and clear. And look at what happened to the King Zeddekiah of Jerusalem and King Noah in response to their wicked ways of aggression? They were conquered and enslaved by greater powers than they, and were only delivered out of that slavery upon repentance and a return to non-aggressive living. Will the fate of our own wicked, tyrannical societies be any different today? Doubtful. If we are not invaded and conquered, we’ll turn to civil war and fighting/warring amongst each other for power over the throne of aggression, i.e. the federal, state, county, and city governments. Indeed, this is already the case with the fights between Democrats and Republicans and others who seek to do whatever possible in order to obtain the thrones of power and exercise aggressive coercion upon all. Indeed, taking the words of Alma above from Mosiah 23, if likening them to ourselves in our own present day, these verses would read as follows:
7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a government; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a government.
8 Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your governors it would be well for you to have a government.
9 But remember the iniquity of the United States governments and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore repentance;
12 And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by the United States governments, and have been in bondage to them, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity.
13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of the United States governments, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a governor over you.
There is no righteous government on the earth today; nor has there ever been nor shall there ever be. For government, i.e. one person or a group of people esteeming themselves as above all others, exercising violent, aggressive coercion over those they claim to serve but in reality govern, their slaves, is inherently wicked and iniquitous. There can be no “righteous government” nor “righteous governor.” The “kings” of the Nephites were not truly kings, for they exercised no unjust, aggressive & coercive authority over the people. They were called “kings” but weren’t truly so. King Noah was a king, as were the Laminate kings. They were truly governments, with all the murder, theft, slavery, and aggressive tyranny inherent in government. You can have righteous people as your “governors,” your “kings,” who don’t actually exercise the power of the throne over you, but you cannot always guarantee such people will be in power, much less stay righteous while in power. Thus, it is best NOT to have a throne of power at all, where one person or a group of them esteem themselves to be above the rest. This is one of the most important lessons the Book of Mormon teaches us concerning the beneficence to humankind of anarchy/voluntarism and the non-aggressive, charitable, loving, peaceful ways of Christ that make anarchy work. Introduce iniquity, i.e. aggression into your lives, and you introduce slavery, if not immediately then eventually.
The Reign of the Judges: Kings are bad, but are Democracy & Checks & Balances Any Better?
To condense the story, the people of Limhi, the son of wicked King Noah, the Nephite group who under Zeniff had gone back to the Land of Nephi to dwell, right in the midst of the Lamanites, repented of the wickedness his father had lead them into and eventually escaped their enslavement under the Laminates. They did so by giving the Laminates guards set around their city their tax on wine, giving them extra beyond the tax, and waited til they were drunk and escaped into the wilderness with the help of a group of Nephites who had come down searching for them from the land of Zarahemla. These Zarahemla Nephites guided them back to the land of Zarahemla where they united with the Nephites there under King Mosiah. Alma and his group, who had escaped from King Noah’s army previously, eventually found their way to Zarahemla and joined the Nephites there as well under King Mosiah, Alma forming the Church of Christ/God and being its high priest. Time passed, and those of the younger generations began to go about seeking to destroy the Church of Christ and lead its people away into sin, i.e. aggressive living. 5 of these younger Nephites were Alma the high priest’s own son, Alma the Younger, and 4 of the sons of King Mosiah. They experienced there own divine intervention that persuaded them to repent of their evil ways and follow the commandments of God and live righteously. Eventually, these 4 sons of Mosiah left Zarahemla for the Land of Nephi again so as to teach Christ’s Gospel and his ways to the Lamanites, while Alma the Younger remained in Zarahemla and eventually became high priest like his father after he died. Now King Mosiah, before his sons departed for their preachings to the Laminates, sought to bestow the kingdom on one of his sons. But they all refused to take to position of king. They instead sought to go and try to convert their Laminates brethren from their evil, aggressive ways. This left King Mosiah with no one to bestow the kingdom upon as he was nearing his own death. Thus, he had to think of what to do. After the people of Limhi returned to Zarahemla, they had brought a record of gold plates they had found when Limhi had sent some of his people out to try to find Zarahemla and seek assistance in freeing themselves from enslavement under the Laminates. This group got lost and, instead of finding Zarahemla, they found the ruins of another older civilization, a land that was covered in human bones & rotting weapons and armor, clearly showing a great destruction that had happened to this people through warfare & fighting. While examining this destroyed civilization, this group found a record of gold plates and brought them back to Limhi when they returned to the city of Shilom where Limhi ruled as king under the Laminates after his father Noah had lead them into bondage under the laminates due to his and his people’s wickedness. But, the records were in another language Limhi could not read. But King Mosiah was a seer, and had interpreters, called Urim and Thummin, consisting of two pieces of glass framed in a bow, like a pair of spectacles through which, or rather, through the power of God, using these interpreters, he was able to read this record found by Limhi. This record turned out to the record of the Jadeite people, who were brought over to the Americas at the time of the Biblical Tower of Babel, and who’s society turned to monarchy and eventually to wickedness as a result of their people fighting over the throne, wherein they eventually killed each other off to the last man fighting over the king’s throne so as to be king over all the people. This of course happened over a long period of time. This account of the Jadeite people is found in the Book of Ether, which comes later in the Book of Mormon. But, suffice it say for now, that after reading through these records of the Jaredites and making their story known to his people, and after hearing of the experience of the people of Limhi under Limhi’s father, the wicked King Noah, and seeing all the destruction that these kings brought upon their people because of their own wickedness, Mosiah began to see a pattern and learn a lesson about government, the same lesson Alma the Elder had learned: kings and their thrones tend to lead the people to evil, warfare, slavery, and destruction, and seeing as you can’t always guarantee that a just, righteous person will sit on the king’s throne, it’s best not to have a king at all. Indeed, Mosiah chapter 29 details all the reasons why it’s best not the people to have kings. It’s best to read the chapter for a full account of Mosiah’s explanations behind the unwisdom of having kings and their thrones given in an attempt to persuade the people not to desire another king, but to change to a different system of government altogether. But, the highlights of his reasonings are, like Alma the Elder’s, that
1.) no one should be esteemed as greater than others, meaning there should not be an inequality in power between people wherein one person has power over the rest. Rather, no one person should have power over the rest. This would make each person free to choice his/her own life and be held responsible/accountable for their own choices, be they good or bad, righteous or evil.
2.) It’s not always possible to guarantee that a righteous, just person, like King Benjamin, Mosiah, or the other previous Nephite “Kings” will occupy the king’s throne, and its quite easy for an evil person to occupy or obtain the throne. The Nephites were extremely lucky to have a series of successive “kings”, from the man Nephi himself ordained down to King Benjamin and his son Mosiah, who, while technically they were “kings” in name, they did not actually rule or reign over the people like a king typically does. They did not tax the people, they did not exercise unjust dominion over them, they did not live off the people’s hard work and property, but rather, labored with their own hands for their own subsistence and did all they did for the people Nephi without tribute or payment, doing it of their own freewill out of love for their Nephite brethren and sisters. They were more like judges, teachers, and warrior sages than kings. They punished or, rather, brought justice upon those who aggressed upon others in the form of murder and theft and such. And they issued edicts or laws that guaranteed the people’s freedom and rights. But from all appearances of the record, they did not really exercise aggressive power, only defensive power. But, as experience taught under wicked King Noah, bondage under the Laminates kings, and from the history of the Jadeite people whose civilization was utterly destroyed down to the last by fighting over the king’s throne, as well as experiences of Israel under kings in the Plates of Brass, it was just as likely that an evil king would occupy the throne as a righteous one. And as you could not guarantee the latter, best to prevent the former by not having a king and his throne at all.
3.) The king’s throne causes too many contentions among the people as to who should be the king, which tends to lead to war and bloodshed, and in the case of the Jaredites, the destruction of their entire civilization.
4.) Wicked kings lead the majority of the people into wickedness and thus eventual destruction.
5.) You can’t easily dethrone a wicked king without much bloodshed. The king has his friends in high places, his guards, his wealth, his armies and thus a lot of power to put down possible rebellions to dethrone him due to his tyranny.
For these reasons, Mosiah was able to persuade his people not to desire another king after he died. Thus, Mosiah attempted to create a better system that would attempt to preserve the liberty and equality and rights of the people and make it more difficult for tyrants to take over. His solution was to resort to the will and voice of the people and a system of checks and balances by having the people choose a series of judges who would judge the people according to the law already in effect handed down by the Nephite “kings,” which law was, following the 10 Commandments, essentially, don’t aggress upon others, i.e. don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit fraud, etc. Josiah’s system would have the people choose a chief judge, and two other lesser levels of judges, almost mirroring the US judicial system with its appellate levels. You’d have local judges, an intermediate appellate level of judges, and then the chief judge. And so as to prevent a tyrant at any one level, the other levels would have power to judge the higher or lower levels. So, say, if the chief judge was a tyrant, he could be brought by the people to be judged in his actions by the the intermediate level of judges; if the intermediate level of judges were tyrants, they could be judged by the chief judge or the local judges.
As Mosiah puts it in the Book of Mosiah, chapter 29:
25 Therefore, choose you by the avoice of this people, judges, that ye may be bjudged according to the claws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the avoice of the people desireth anything bcontrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the cpeople to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And aif the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
28 And now if ye have judges, and they do not ajudge you according to the law which has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge.
29 If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people.
Now, on its face, this system of democratically elected judges with a built in system of checks and balances so as to prevent tyrants from being elected and using their seat of power as judge to abuse the people and commit crimes seems a great improvement upon monarchy. Indeed, it is a great improvement, just as the US Constitution with its federative and elective nature and systems of checks and balances was a great improvement upon the British Constitution with its sovereign king in Parliament system of government. But, as shall be seen as the Book of Mormon plays out, just as we have seen from the history of our own modern day nation, the USA under its own federative constitutional government, all the checks and balances, all the bills of rights, and all the direct and indirect elections couldn’t stop the march of tyranny in wicked people obtain those seats of power and using them to oppress the people and lead them into iniquity, war, slavery, and eventual destruction. Indeed, if a tax of 1/5 of all the people owned was onerous to the people under King Noah, our situation today of so many federal and state taxes that we can’t count them all, requiring law students going into tax law study and intern in that one particular legal field, makes life under King Noah seem like a walk in the park. Josiah’s system of judges, like the US Constitution was definitely a great improvement upon monarchy. But instead of a throne, it erected seats of power. Power is power, whether it comes in the form of a king’s throne or the seat of a judge, legislator, president, governor, or high bureaucrat. And the same problem of wicked people seeking those thrones/seats of power to rule over others still applies regardless of the form or shape that throne/seat of power takes. Indeed, while Mosiah was wise to learn the lessons of the dangers of monarchy, he somehow still missed the lesson that the same problems that make monarchy and kings unwise also make other forms of government unwise. Mosiah said, as you cannot guarantee a righteous, just person will sit on the throne as king, it is expedient not to have a king; he should have been wise in seeing the same problem applied to his proposed judges system, that as you cannot always guarantee that a righteous, just person will sit in the judgement seat as judge, it is expedient that you not have judges. Indeed, in his own explanation to the people as to the benefits of his proposed judges system, Mosiah said as much, saying
12 Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.
But then he goes and makes the same mistake in erecting a different throne of power that could just as easily, and indeed did (as shall be seen) just as easily cause the same problems that having a king did. Mosiah was wise; he foresaw this problem, to an extent; but his solution was just as problematic. In foreseeing that some judges would not judge the people justly, and thus they could and should be brought to be judged of other judges in the system, and in foreseeing that the people might not always choose righteous and just judges, he demonstrated he understood the problem of thrones of power. But his solution of democratic elections and checks and balances in creating a hierarchy or variety of appellate levels of judges, much like our own constitutions today, that could just as easily be occupied or sought by other wicked people who would then join the other tyrants in oppressing together, it didn’t quite solve the issue at all. It attempted to solve the problem of tyrants seizing one seat of power by creating other seats of power to try to check the one. Mosiah, in his creating the judges system, didn’t quite apply his own reasoning against kings in full to his own system to see that same problems that plagued monarchy could and indeed would plague the a democratic system of judges with built in checks and balances. He couldn’t quite see that if one wicked king could bring such oppression and destruction upon the people, an entire appellate system of judges taken over by wicked men could do the exact same thing. Or maybe he could see this but didn’t know what else to do? I find this latter explanation difficult to accept, since Mosiah knew Alma the Elder and knew the system of voluntarism in place in the Church, Mosiah himself being a righteous and strong man in the ways of God and also a member of the church of Christ started by Alma. He had to have known Alma’s success in anarchy and voluntarism as his people’s teacher and guide but not rule or king after they fled King Noah but before arriving in Zarahemla. I find it more credible to believe that Mosiah perhaps just didn’t use his reasoning to its fullest extent to see that a throne of power is a throne of power than can easily be used by iniquitous tyrants to oppress and destroy the people and their civilization. After all, this system of judges was new and hadn’t been tried before. Perhaps he just couldn’t see that it, too, could be infected by the same problems that infected monarchy. Or it’s possible he knew the people would not go for anarchy and would demand some system of government, and thus this was the best he could come up with that he knew they would accept. It’s difficult to know, as we can’t know Mosiah’s mind. He does say that if it comes to the majority of the people choosing evil by electing evil judges & becoming ripe in their iniquity, then they would have to answer for the destruction they bring upon themselves in doing so from God himself. And we do run into this scenario later on in time several years after Josiah’s death. Or it could be that Mosiah, tho he was a righteous king, as well as the rest of the Nephites, coming from a Jewish background with Jewish records and thus steeped in having a human government like the rest of the nations for hundreds of years, a monarchy in particular, perhaps they all just couldn’t wrap their mind around having no rulers of any kind save it be God. After all, are we not that different today? The vast majority of people today cannot conceptualize a world without rulers and governments, a world where they rule themselves and themselves alone as sovereign individuals. They live their life this way wherever government does not reach, but given the expanding reach of government, it is near impossible for them to imagine a world without it. I myself used to be the same way. I took government and rulers for granted, as the “normal,” “inevitable” way of life, never realizing there was another, a better way, anarchy and voluntarism, never realizing that despite government’s tentacles reaching into all aspects of life, that I still spent much of my life engaged in anarchy and voluntarism, especially being raised as a Mormon in the LDS church growing up. If I couldn’t imagine a world without government, taking its existence and all that comes with it as the natural way of life since that was the culture and context I grew up in, it’s not difficult to imagine Mosiah and his Nephite brethren also expecting there always to be a government. Perhaps Mosiah was no wiser than us today, when it came simply not realizing or thinking through to the end logically, let alone at all, about the dangers of erecting thrones of power. Perhaps Mosiah was just as wise as the American Founding Fathers, taking the existence of government for granted, unable to conceptualize a world without its existence given their experience with humanity, and simply tried to mitigate the destructive nature of what they just thought would always exist, to the best of their ability. Perhaps we can’t be too hard on Mosiah in judging him for his creation of the judges system and not seeing his own logic concerning the dangers of kings all the way through and applying those same dangers fully to his democratic judges system.
Whatever Mosiah’s mind on the matter, whatever his intentions, and whatever his wisdom, either way, as events in the Book of Mormon turned out, the system of judges was indeed just as susceptible to the same problems that plagued monarchy. Eventually, wicked judges would be put into place by the wicked people, first locally, but then all over the Nephite realm, and together with lawyers, these wicked judges would use the law and their positions in government as judges and lawyers to commit murders, thefts, enslavements, tortures, and all manner of aggressions against the people and would use their positions of power to protect each other in their crimes. First, this would take place on a local level, like in the city of Amonihah in the Book of Alma, chapters 8-16, where the people were ripe in their iniquity, having become wicked as a majority and thus having chosen wicked judges and relying upon wicked lawyers to oppress and aggress upon the minority followers of God and Christ. But this tendency of wicked people to seek the thrones of power and the people to appoint them to said thrones so they could all try to get away with committing all manner of aggressions against whomever they pleased and excuse themselves in doing so would eventually spread to the entire judges system itself. And evil people taking control of the thrones of power to freely “justify” and “legalize” their aggressions would go on to the point where they would bring an entire collapse to the judges system, throwing the Nephite people back into tribes prior to the coming of Christ, where he would construct a system of anarchy and voluntarism that would last for around 400 years.
Indeed, it was not but a few years into the judges system, with Alma the Younger, high priest of the church being elected as chief judge, that we see squabbles begin to occur over the throne of power, leading to a great war between the dissenting Nephites and their Laminate allies against the rest of the Nephites, leading to a great slaughter on both sides. And this cycle of contention over control of the seat of power leading to civil war and war with the Laminates occur over and over again until the entire system is collapsed by wicked people taking over every judgement seat and supporting each other in their crimes and aggressions against the people. I dub this cycle, the Mormon Game of Thrones, for that is exactly what is turns into. Whether king, judge, legislator, governor, president, or bureaucrat, elected or unelected, a throne of power is a throne of power, and they will always attract the evil ones in society who wish to wield them for their own profit and pleasure at the expense of everyone under them, to commit all manner of evils easily and freely using the throne’s resources and police/military power to commit all manner of evil aggressions against whomever they please. If he didn’t, Mosiah should have seen that in creating a seat of power in creating elected judges, he was not establishing a system of equality, but rather, like monarchy, one of inequality, as any seat/throne of power necessarily renders the occupier a ruler over everyone else, a slave master over slaves, where an evil person could just as easily occupy said throne or seat as a righteous, just person, just like under monarchy. Either way, experience proved this to be true, just as it has for us today. Just as Josiah’s system of judges ended up being a complete failure in keeping tyranny and evil at bay and out of power, so to our own constitutions have been complete and utter failures in keeping tyranny at bay and evil out of power. It’s only a matter of time before our own system collapses like the Nephite’s government of judges did.
If it is not always possible to have a righteous and just king on the throne, and thus it is not expedient that we should have a king, it is not always possible to have a righteous and just judges/legislators/presidents/governors/prime ministers/bureaucrats on all the thrones/seats of power, and thus it is not expedient that we should have those seats of power and the inherent inequality they bring. This is the lesson Mosiah and his people should have learned from the past but for whatever reason didn’t. It is the same lesson we must learn today, if we are to avoid the same pitfalls, mistakes, and destruction the Nephite civilization endured as a result of their not learning that lesson. Governments are slavery. They are aggression, or at least, make mass aggression possible. They allow warlords to come to power and murder, steal and enslave at will, using their plunder taken from the people to fund their guards, police forces, and militaries used to keep the tax slaves working and providing, as well as to extend their plantations by force, acquiring new territory and more tax slaves to keep feeding their greedy, evil mouths in their iniquity and laziness, just like in the Jewish, Jaredite, Mulekite, Nephite and Laminate societies in the Book of Mormon. So far, we today have not done very well in learning from the experiences of these Book of Mormon and Biblical peoples and have continued to make their same mistakes over and over again, pridefully thinking ourselves better able than they to withstand the temptations of power that thrones offer. And the consequences are beginning to show: wars of empire and mass murders everywhere, onerous tax slavery, vast inequality, whether in terms of rights and worth as human being or in wealth, everywhere, the few living off the hard work and property of the many, ever diminishing freedom and rights evaporating before our very eyes, and tyranny and oppression and the resulting suffering of the masses running rampant over the entire globe. All is NOT well in Zion, BECAUSE of government and the continued erecting of thrones of power and aggression and the accompanying refusal to live by the Christian standards/principles of non-aggression, mutual aid and charity, love, persuasion, patience, etc. When the wicked control the thrones of power, they lead the people into iniquity and thus contentions, greed, wars, bondage, and eventual destruction. It’s not just a monarchy problem. It’s a throne/seat of power problem, regardless of the form that throne takes. Alma the Elder’s anarchic society, as well as the anarchic society initiated by christ himself after he visited the Americas is the key to our survival as a human family on this earth.
Proceeding on with the Book of Mormon story, we get a better idea as to the actual workings of the judges system and how it is susceptible to the same issues of evil taking control of the throne as monarchy in Alma chapters 8-16 when Alma steps down as chief judge in order to focus on being high priest so that he may travel and bring the Nephite realm to repentance and put the Church of God on a sure footing. He first begins his preaching tour in Zarahemla itself, then proceeds to other surrounding cities round about the Nephite land. He comes to one such city, called Ammonihah, where the people are so iniquitous that he is cast out by them from the city, the people saying Alma has a devil inside him, projecting their own wickedness and life of aggressions upon him. He is about to turn his back on Ammonihah for good when he is visited by the same angel who visited him long ago and brought him and the sons of Mosiah back from the edge of damnation by showing them the power of God, causing them to repent and change their lives from lives of lying, fraud, and aggression to lives of peace and non-aggression, i.e. righteousness, after the ways of Christ who should come in the near future, following the 10 Commandments, etc. This angel tells Alma he is to go back to Ammonihah where he would meet a man who would be ready to take him into his home, feed him, and eventually join him as his preaching companion. This man’s name was Amulet. It was in the course of Alma and Amulek’s preaching repentance to the people of Ammonihah that we get a look at the workings of the system of the judges and the power the judges were given over the people. Particularly, in Alma chapter 11, we see that the judges who were elected by the people were paid a stipend of a certain amount of gold and silver for their performing of their duties. What the Book of Mormon is silent on is how these stipends were funded. Were they funded by some sort of taxation? It doesn’t say specifically, but such is a logical conclusion, as that is how our judges are paid today for them performing their judicial duties, out of the public purse which is filled by compulsory taxation, i.e. theft with the threat of aggressive violation against any who do not pay, regardless of whether they consent or not. However these judges were paid, they had power to take people and punish them according to their “crimes,” or as in the case of Alma and Amulek, they had power to bind them, put them in prison, and threaten them with murder by fire if they did not comply with all their dictates. For this is what occurs to Alma and Amulek; as they are preaching, the lawyers question Alma and Amulek and seek to try to catch them in their words, lying to the people in the process and getting the people riled up against Alma and Amulek by lying and saying they reviled their laws and their judges. Now, of course, Alma and Amulek did no such thing. They merely pointed out the evil of the people and the evil their judges were committing as part of their jobs, excusing and allowing the people, including themselves, to commit all manner of aggressions, up to theft, kidnap, enslavement, and murder, using the law to excuse this iniquity, these aggressions. Now the lawyers spun these words of Alma and Amulek to say that they were reviling the laws and government of Ammonihah (which they were certainly not doing), in order to rile the people up against them so they could try to find an excuse to arrest them, imprison them, and bring them before their iniquitous chief judge so that he may aggress upon them further. And this they do. Alma and Amulek are bound and thrown into prison, naked and bound, where they are tortured by having food and water withheld from them while the lawyers and chief judge of Ammonihah continuously come into their prison cell and mock, hit, and otherwise abuse them, threatening them with all sorts of violence towards them. These lawyers and the chief judge even take all the minority of righteous people living in Ammonihah and drive out the men from the city while keeping their wives and children and burning them alive, along with their records, making Alma and Amulek watch it all while threatening to burn them alive next if they did not plead guilty to reviling their laws and government and recant all the preaching they did concerning the wickedness of the people of Ammonihah. These lawyers, their chief judge, and the people in general of Ammonihah were, as Alma explains, of the order of Nehor, the man who years prior had sought to enforce his belief system and iniquity upon others by the sword, using aggressive violence or threats thereof to compel others to live according to their evil desires. They were murderers, thieves, slavers, torturers, and generally tyrants who abused power. Eventually, after being forced to witness the brutal murders of the innocent and righteous women and children by being burned alive, and after being abused, tortured, and threatened with the same death by the governing and ruling elites of Ammonihah for 12 days in prison, Alma and Amulek call upon God to give them power to break the cords binding them and shake the prison walls, causing the prison walls to break apart and fall down, crushing to death the fleeing murdering lawyers, chief judge, and prison guards in the process, causing the people of Ammonihah who witnessed such events to flee before Alma and Amulek so that they might take their leave unmolested. Alma and Amulek return to Zarahemla and eventually and invading Laminate army ransacks and destroys the city of Ammonihah, killing everyone in it, thus fulfilling the prophecies of Alma and Amulek in saying God would destroy Ammonihah for its people becoming ripe in their iniquity, fulfilling his promise that he would not allow evil, aggressive people to prosper in the promised land as it would be a promised land only for the righteous.
So, within the first 10 years of the reign of the judges, the democratically chosen, system of checks and balances protected judges system proved itself to be susceptible to the same problems that plague not only monarchy but all systems of government and thrones of power, that is wicked, aggressors, murderers, thieves, and slavers seizing control of the thrones in order to benefit themselves at the expense of others and “justify,” “excuse,” and “legalize” their crimes under color of law, oppressing the people and leading them into iniquity just as happened under the wicked kings of Judah, Israel, and the Laminates and Nephites. The supposedly better, more “free” and better constituted system of democratically elected judges with built in checks and balances was not off to a great start only 10 years into its existence. And things would only continue to get worse over the next 100 or so years til Christ himself came and instituted an anarchic society based upon his righteous ways of living.
Peaceful preaching, persuasion, and patient interaction and service vs. aggressive/violent, arrogant coercion
The story of Ammon and his brothers, the sons of “King” Mosiah, in converting thousands upon thousands of Laminates by going humbly into their realms to serve them and be an instrument in God’s hands to convert them to the ways of Christ, i.e. non-aggression contrasted with the violent, aggressive invasion and coerced “conversion” via conquest is important to note. Ammon and his brethren of course took up their journey into the wilderness to go up to the land of Nephi to the Laminates armed, for their protection from wild beasts and other threats, as well as to provide food for themselves. And indeed, Ammon kept his sword and sling with him as a servant of King Lamoni’s over his flocks, using them to defend himself, his fellow servant Laminate brothers, and King Lamont’s flocks of whatever animal the herd consisted of. But those were tools used solely for survival and defense, used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary for defense of life purposes. Being armed and even using the weapons in defense was not the issue. The issue was that the sons of Mosiah went into the Laminate territory to convert not by force, not by aggression, not by coercion, but rather, by patient, humble, loving, charitable persuasion, placing themselves at the bottom so that, through their humble service, they could show the Laminates that the Nephites were not these proud, arrogant, thieving, dominating people the Laminates traditions taught them. They did this so that they could show the Laminates by example how to live, living as Christ in service, patience, and persuasion so as to show them the way of how to have a peaceful, service oriented society based on individual initiative. They did this to show the Laminates the power and prosperous way of life that could be had that living as Christ brings. They sought to convert by example and persuasion, and it worked. Indeed, it worked so well, that several kingdoms, including the highest king over all the Laminate lands, and their peoples, converted to the ways of Christ, repenting from and abandoning their previous murderous, thieving, slaver, tyrant life styles. Indeed, they were so keen on never returning to their older ways of aggression, so as not to fall back into old habits like an addict might when around temptations that bring about cravings, that they buried their weapons of war deep in the earth so as not fall back into those old temptations. Indeed, when other aggressing Laminates came to attack the newly converted Lamanites, called Anti-Nephi-Lehis, these newly converted Christian Laminates refused to lift a finger to defend themselves and instead allowed themselves to be slaughtered so much was their devotion to never returning to their previous wicked ways of aggression and murder. And this sacrifice of their lives instead of returning to violence ended up converting more Lamanites, the very ones who had just been slaughtering them. But Ammon used violence in defense of himself, his Laminate brethren servants, and King Lamoni’s flocks against aggressing other Laminates seeking to kill them and steal their herds. And Ammon used violence in defense of his own life and that of King Lamoni’s when he and Lamoni met Lamont’s father on their way to free Ammon’s brothers from prison, because Lamont’s father first sought to kill Ammon with his sword and then Lamoni. Ammon only ever used violence sparingly, in defense of himself and the lives and property of others, as a last resort. The issue isn’t using violence. Sometimes violence is unavoidable. The issue is not being the initiator of violence, the aggressor, especially if one is wanting to convert others to the ways of Christ and non-aggression. As the sons of Mosiah demonstrated, a peaceful, non-aggressive offense via teaching by persuasion and leading by example through service is the more fruitful method in turning people hearts to the message of Christ and non-aggression and getting them to change. And yet, sometimes, defensive violence is needed in order to save life. The example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s burrying their weapons of war is not necessarily meant to be the example all must follow. That action of theirs was very specific to their context; they were ignorantly guilty of many murders and crimes against others when in their ignorance of Christ and his ways. And their repentance process, like that of Alma the Younger and sons of Mosiah, was a sore one. And once they tasted of the mercy and love of God and Christ in forgiving their sins committed in ignorance, they were extremely desirous not to have to repeat that repentance process and not give themselves any excuse whatsoever of possibly falling back into their old ways.
The Nephites never burried their weapons of war; they couldn’t, as the aggressive, non-converted Laminates were always a threat. Ammon and his brothers didn’t burry their weapons, but instead used them for defense & survival. They and many of the Nephites were already converted and had not lead murderous lives like the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. And besides, while the extreme pacifism of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, even to their allowing themselves to be murdered, lead to more Laminates converting, not all did. And God still expects us to do our own parts in defending ourselves when necessary. He will do what we cannot, only after all we have done.
This is another tenet of anarchism, that violence is justified only when used in defense of life, liberty, and property. It is never to be used aggressively.
Jacob & Sherem vs. Alma the Younger & Korihor; contending with anti-Christs
Both Jacob, the younger brother of Nephi and Alma the Younger in the Book of Mormon have their own individual experiences contending publicly with their own specific anti-Christs. Indeed, Alma the Younger has two such prominent experiences. Firstly, in the Book of Jacob earlier in the Book of Mormon, Jacob contends with an anti-Christ named Sherem, who taught people that there would be no Christ and that Jacob was leading the people astray from the Law of Moses. This Sherem was already discussed earlier, but he was free to believe as he wished and to go about and preach his beliefs and doctrines in competition with that of Jacob and his doctrines of Christ and their church. He one day publicly sought out Jacob so as to contend with him over religious doctrine and try to shake Jacob from his strong faith in Christ after all the miracles and teachings he had seen and heard from his father Lehi and his brother Nephi on their journey to the Promised Land. Jacob thrones Sherem in the religious debate, logically so, wherein Sherem, like all anti-Christs, demand a sign from God to try to disprove Jacob’s and God’s power. Jacob and God grants his wish, and Sherem collapses to the ground, possibly of a stroke or heart attack or something, and dies a few days later after a deathbed repentance Alma the Younger contends with two anti-Christs, one named Nehor, who preached priestcraft (preaching the word of God for fame & money) as well as anti-Christ teachings and sought to enforce it by the sword, i.e. by aggressive compulsion, killing an innocent, righteous man in the process. The second anti-Christ Alma the Younger contends with several years later is named Korihor, who preached essentially atheism, in addition to anti-Christ teachings, and ultimately that it mattered not what anyone did in this life, or rather, one’s actions didn’t matter; all that matter was living in the here and now and doing as you pleased, thus excusing away all manner of aggressions against others. In both situations, both anti-Christs are brought to the judgement seat where Alma is chief judge. Nehor is brought to the judgement seat, not because of his beliefs and anti-Christ, priestcraft preachings, which he was free to do, but rather because he had killed the innocent, righteous man named Gideon who had fought the wicked King Noah in the land of the Laminates years before. Nehor murdered this Gideon who sought to contend with him in word, I.e. debate him concerning his anti-Christ doctrines and priestcrafts. Nehor became enraged he could not overcome Gideon in debate and murdered him with his word. Thus, Nehor was arrested by the people and brought before Alma as Chief Judge to be judged of his crime. He was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to death. The other anti-Christ Alma contends with, Korihor has similar ending to that of Jacob and Sherem, wherein Alma trounces Korihor in the debate, and as a last ditched effort to try to somehow prove Alma wrong, he too demands a sign from God to try to prove Alma and his Christ have no power. God grants Korihor his wish, as always, and Korihor, according to Alma’s words, is struck dumb and can no longer speak. Korihor had idiotically and cruelly hoped God would afflict some other innocent person with the sign he demanded, and God granted his his wish by afflicting him for his demanded sign. Korihor is ultimately turned away and he goes from place to place begging for food and subsistence, everyone knowing who is and what he tried to do, and eventually ends up in a place occupied by a breakaway dissident Nephite group called the Zoramites, where he is trampled to death. What sets the 3 anti-Christ scenarios apart, though, is that with Jacob and Sherem, the meeting between the two is consensual, and there is no coercion involved in bringing the two together to contend. Sherem seeks Jacob out publicly and Jacob obliges. Nehor, is coercively brought to the judgement seat, but on account of his having committed murder, and thus is justified to have been brought before the judgement seat to be judged for his crime. Korihor, however, is coercively brought before multiple judgement seats, but not for any “crime” or aggression he committed. And herein lies the important difference and lesson to be learned from these anti-Christ scenarios, regarding the dangers of government and the blessings of anarchy. Alma and Korihor’s debate is found in the Book of Alma, chapter 30, wherein Alma, or the compiler of the Book of Mormon, Mormon himself or perhaps his son, Moroni, goes into detail regarding the freedom of worship and belief that each individual allegedly had under the system of the judges that “King” Mosiah had created for the Nephite civilization to take over once his “reign” as “king” ended. Everyone was free to believe as they wished, and belong to the Church of Christ or not, or belong to some other religious institution, according to the desires of their hearts and consciences. The law could have no hold on someone for their beliefs and the preaching of their beliefs. The law could only have a hold on someone if they committed a crime, wherein they would be brought before the judge or judges to be judged for their crime. And yet, unlike Nehor, who committed murder and thus was justified in being arrested and brought before the judges, Korihor committed no such crime, or at least, there is no mention of a crime he had committed to be arrested and brought before the judge. Instead, this Korihor had been preaching his false anti-Christ doctrines in the land of Jershon where the people of Ammon, former Laminates turned toward Christ lived, where he was arrested, bound, and brought before the judge there and they cast him out of the land. By all accounts, it appears the people of Ammon violated the law by falsely arresting Korihor and bringing him to their judge, for he had committed no crime as of yet. And herein we see the erroneous bias of the writer of the Book of Alma and the compiler of the Book of Mormon , either Mormon himself or his son Moroni, toward aggressive government action. For in his description of Korihor’s arrest by the people of Ammon in the land of Jershon, he describes the people of Ammon as being “wiser” for arresting Korihor. Now don’t get me wrong, I am in no way attempting to defend Korihor’s doctrines, for they taught that anyone could do whatever they pleased, even commits aggressions against others and be excused with no consequences for having done them. Rather, I am attempting to point out the unfortunate natural bias toward aggressive government that even the best of the most righteous Nephites still had trouble escaping or letting go of, having lived their entire lives under such an aggressive government and thus never truly learning the lessons that where thrones of power exist, evil, designing people do whatever they can to obtain them to commit their aggressions more easily and on a more massive scale.
What we see happening here with Korihor is an early example of the Nephites abandoning the rights protecting principles of their government, the judges system, where all are supposed to be equal under the law, only answerable to the law and the judges upon the committing of crimes. And yet in Alma 30, the writer or compiler goes to great lengths to explain how it was no crime to believe as Ione wished and even preach as one wished. Rather, it was a crime if one stole, murdered, or harmed/aggressed upon another in some way. But as to one’s belief in God or disbelief in God and the ability to preach and publish it, all were equally free to do so, whether it was Alma the High Priest of the Church of Christ himself or Korihor. And, unless there is some crime/aggression of Korihor that goes unmentioned, it appears that Korihor was arrested & brought before the judge in the city of Jershon among the people Jershon and expelled from their city, and then arrested and brought before Alma the high priest, solely for preaching his belief, however erroneous his belief may have been. With this scenario of Korihor being arrested for his beliefs and preaching them, contrary to the Nephite law that protected each individual’s right of conscience and religious belief, we begin to see the cracks appear in the supposedly better devised, better protected against corruption, democratically elected judges system with built in checks and balances. We begin to see that the throne, even if used for good intentions, can easily corrupt even the best of human beings, to make them abandon the rights of the individual in favor of safety or protection or justice. For these cracks in the supposedly better, more free and equitable judges system, where tyranny gets its first foothold in and toward the throne or seat of power, appeared under the direction of a very righteous man, the High Priest and prophet of God, who had seen angels and performed mighty miracles in God’s service. If the throne cannot be trusted and can be abused even under him, where “necessity,” “fear” or “passion” can make even the High Priest/Chief Judge abandon the law that protects people rights, then who can it be trusted under? The answer is no one but yourself. You and you alone are your own throne off power, and your boundaries or jurisdiction stops with you and you alone.
So not but 17 years into the reign of the judges, there had already been a rebellion attempt to return to the dictatorship of monarchy, several wars with invading Laminates forces, and the violating of the law and the rights of freedom of worship of Korihor the anti-Christ, with the writer or compiler of Alma 30 seemingly smiling upon this infraction upon the Korihor’s rights. As the system of the judges continues on, it’ll only continue to get worse, with more rebellious attempts to seize the throne of power by evil tyrants and actual success in doing so to the point of collapsing the system and Nephite civilization altogether out of oppression and evil by those who sat on the thrones/seats of power. Which all just goes to show that no matter how well you think you have devised that system of aggressive violence and power, no matter how many protections you placed around the throne to keep it from being seized or democratically filled with and evil tyrant, such checks and balances always fail in the end, leading to more and more tyranny, oppression, and suffering of the innocent and rights at the hands of the wicked who always end up on the thrones of power, protecting themselves in their murders and thefts and enslavements. Best not to erect the thrones in the first place. Alma the Younger’s father understood that. It’s a shame he and his cohort of contemporary Nephites also couldn’t quite understand the concept yet that whether monarchy or democratic judges, the system will crack, be corrupted, and seized by designing tyrants who wish to rule over others and & do whatever they please to whomever they please using the power of the throne to protect and allow them to do so.
One other interesting thing about the change between Alma the Younger and Korihor is that Korihor attempted to say that the Nephites under the system of the judges and under Alma’s chief judgeship were unfree. Of course, Korihor, being an anti-Christ and an idiot, didn’t pick good reasons or evidence to back up this claim. For, the claim is actually correct; the Nephites did not live under a “free government.” Freer than others of the world, perhaps, but not truly “free.” Korihor based his claims of the Nephites not living under a free government off of religious accusations against Alma and the teachers and priests of the Church of Christ free loading and glutting themselves off the people in exchange for their roles as teachers and priests. As Alma points out, this couldn’t be further from the truth, for he, like the righteous leaders before him, worked for his own support and received nothing in the way of monetary compensation for his efforts as High Priest. For, to do otherwise would be priestcraft, like Nehor did. Korihor’s tried to argue that the silly traditions of the church kept the people under bondage and unfree from making their own choices, as if to say call a mother teller her young child not to touch the hot stove tyranny and the child “not free.” It’s a laughable claim. Korihor would have had a much better claim about the the Nephite government being in reality unfree if he took his example of being unjustly arrested and tried on two different occasions. If he’d pointed out that the judges were paid by some kind of taxation, thus requiring the stealing of people’s property in order to fund the judges, he would have had a much better argument. But, he didn’t and instead the Nephites were left to continue on being unaware of the giant snare they were in by continuing to have a throne of power or multiple thrones available for the taking by enterprising evil men. Korihor was an evil guy. He tried to excuse robbery and murder and all other manner of aggressions by saying there was no God and thus no right or wrong and all that matter was what a person did. There is no excusing him. But he was right in saying the Nephite people were in bondage and not free, only he said it for the wrong reasons using the wrong evidence to back it up.
D&C 58, The Mormon Romans 13: Obedience or Submission?
Main stream Christianity, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox has Romans 13, and plenty of Christian adherents take an interesting, literal interpretation of it to mean that governments are given to mankind by God and must be obeyed in all things. However, Romans 13 can only be understood by reading what Christ taught and did regarding the state, in his time, the Roman Empire and the Judean monarchy. Matthew 17 is a key chapter in the New Testament, along with Matthew 22 & it’s corresponding versions in Mark 12 & Luke 20.
D&C 58 is essentially the modern day version of Roman’s 13 for Mormons. But, for most people who read D&C 58, like so many who misunderstand, Romans 13, they often get the meaning wrong, interpreting the words quite literally and in isolation of context of the rest of the scriptures, whether of ancient origin or of those of a more modern time reference. In Mormondom, this misunderstanding of both D&C 58 and Romans 13 goes well beyond the lay member level, even up to the highest levels of “authority.” Why? Probably because like the most of the everyday membership, many of the “officers” in the LDS Church hierarchy were raised in an culture and nation surrounded by government, its idols (flags, statues, and other symbols), and its propaganda, like a fish in water that is not at all aware that it is in water. Both everyday member and highest ranking authority in Mormondom have likely never been taught to question the government, let alone question whether there should even be a government at all. To most, as discussed, the very word anarchy, even in their very scriptures themselves, bears the baggage of fiery, war torn, chaos, the very thing opposite of what anarchy really represents. In short, most LDS members of any rank in the Los Church and its culture misinterpret and misunderstand D&C 58 and Romans 13 because they have been trained to see government as absolutely necessary and the absence of it to be evil, trained to think such by the government itself in its propaganda prisons, AKA public schools, and everywhere else it can drill said propaganda into their heads. When you’re surrounded by government, like the fish in water, what reason do you have to notice it, let alone question its necessity, unless you have been harmed so much by it in such a profound way for so long that you are practically driven to notice and question it? For most Christians, including Mormons, Romans 13 means government is ordained of God and government leaders are ordained of God, therefore we must obey them and they must by necessity exist or else it would be chaotic, violent, war torn pandemonium. But as all anarchist are always eager to point out, doesn’t that very description, chaotic, violent, war torn pandemonium describe society as it exists now and in the past under human government? Perhaps, like D&C 98, 101, and 134, there might be a different, even better interpretation of Romans 13 and its modern day equivalent, D&C 58 that lines up in harmony with the anarchic, voluntarist teachings of Christ present throughout the rest of the scriptures.
Contrary to the common interpretation of these chapters, D&C 58 and Romans 13 don’t teach that government is good and that it is good to have any number or whatever kind of coercive laws with corresponding coercive punishments, including prison and taxes to fund those governments…that all such governments and their laws, punishments, and taxes are created, given and, and blessed/condoned/ordained by God. Rather, these scriptures, like the contexts of Matthew 17 and 22 teach that, instead of being ordained of God, these governments exist despite God’s will, given that God has given mankind their agency, to choose and be subject to the consequences of their choices. And like the ancient Israelites of old in 1 Samuel Chapter 8, both Jew and Gentile have chosen to remove perfectly merciful and just, loving, patient, persuasive God as their judge and have insisted on having their imperfect, aggression prone fellow man to being their judges and rulers. In Matthew 17, the tribute/tax collectors for the Temple come to Peter and ask if his master, Jesus pays his taxes, to which Peter responded in the affirmative. When Peter was about to enter the building where Jesus was, Jesus, having heard the question or otherwise known about it, asked Peter who the conquering rulers demand a tax from, their children or those they have conquered? Peter responds that the answer is the latter, those they have conquered, to which Christ responds that thus the children of said conquerors are free, implying the conquered strangers are not. Nevertheless, Jesus tells Peter to go and catch a fish, in which he would find a coin to give to the tax collectors. Now the important part in the reason WHY Jesus had Peter do this. Not because Jesus ordained or condoned the monarchic and rabbinical government of the Kingdom of Judah, much less that of Rome, or because he thought having such were necessary. He didn’t. He was God’s son, the God of this world, having created it and all in it in the name of the Father, and thus if any was the world’s rightful ruler, it was he. And yet het came not to rule but to serve and minister to his creations. No, Jesus’s reason for having Peter pay the tax was so that the tax collectors would not get upset and angry and cause a scene and perhaps frustrate the mission of Jesus and his Apostles. He did not want to anger them unnecessarily by showing what he truly thought of their coercive, aggressive governments built on murder, theft, and slavery, at least not in that moment and not in that way. Similarly, Jesus, in answering the question about paying tribute to Caesar, answered saying to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, knowing full well that Caesar owned truly nothing save his life and what little property he needed to survive and prosper. He knew nothing more than this truly belonged to Caesar, much less the entire Roman Empire. If anyone had a rightful claim over the then known world in the Roman Empire, it was Christ himself being the creator, but which he utterly refused to claim when Satan tempted him and offered him control over the earthly kingdoms. So what are Romans 13 and D&C 58 saying exactly? Like Jesus and the tax paid from the coin in the fish, and like he said in his Sermon on the Mount, these earthly powers existed contrary to his will, but he was not yet come to destroy them and reap his harvest, separating the wheat from the tares, i.e. the righteous from the wicked, which would happen in the very end when he returned again to dwell with the righteous during the Millennium. As such, it was best to agree with your adversary while in the way with him, than to try to fight your adversary off through violent rebellion, especially if your adversary was much more powerful and more well armed and provisioned than you, for otherwise your adversary would deliver you to the officer and then to the judge, who would then place you in prison from whence you would not return until you paid the uttermost farthing. In other words, these earthly, wicked powers exist and there’s not much you can do alone nor as a small group to change that, especially through violent rebellion, and as such, it’s best to be strategic in your opposition and submit to their pretend, perceived (tho truly non-existent) “authority” while they are more powerful than you and have the ability to utterly destroy you. It’s better to live and other day and continue to preach the Gospel of Christ and his ways, anarchy and voluntarism, than to pointlessly become a martyr, where there is not much you can do to help and teach the living from beyond the grave. Jesus’s message in Matthew 17 & 22, is not necessarily of obedience, for Christ himself did not obey the Sadducees, Pharisees, nor the Judean monarchy nor even Rome in their demands for him to stop preaching what he preached. And his Apostles did not obey, just as Daniel didn’t obey Darius’s edict against prayer, nor Alma and his people King Noah’s or later the wicked judge of Noah, Amulon’s edict against prayer and worship in the Book of Mormon. There are plenty of examples of scriptural righteous people doing the will of God contrary to the government’s edicts or wishes that they lived under. Indeed, Jesus himself did not obey, but when it came time for those earthly kingdoms to flex their muscles against him, he didn’t obey, but he submitted to their pretend authority but very real power. For that is the message of Romans 13 and D&C 58 and their surrounding scriptural contexts, that of doing righteousness regardless of the consequences and strategic submission while not in any position to defend yourself and win. While such earthly powers exist, contrary to God’s will and our own, submit to their perceived but fake authority, i.e. their power so as to live another day and continue preaching and doing the will of Christ and the Father. This is a far different message than “governments are ordained of God, as are their rulers, and thus we owe obedience to them as God’s servants. God, the author of our liberty, who cast Satan out of Heaven for seeking to destroy our agency, our individual freedom to choose, would not place human rulers over us to enslave us and thus take away our agency through their love of power and riches. That is Satan’s work. God gives mankind according to their desires, and if most of humanity wants earthly, human rulers and slavery, he gives it to them. But he does not condone or ordain such, much less put such people in power over the rest of his children. Those people seize power and abuse it in the manner of Satan, or the people willingly place themselves under such enslavement to such Satanic rulers. But he doesn’t not want us to be slaves to them nor worship them. He wants us to return to him and his ways.
So when Romans 13 and D&C 58 say to be subject to the laws of the land, it does not mean pridefully obey all arbitrary edicts by the tyrants that rule, like Caesar in Christ’s time, but rather, it means to recognize the existence of these earth powers, despite the will of God, and do your best to stay out of their reach and beyond their gaze, if possible, and if you happen to fall into their gaze or reach, submit to their pretend authority for self preservation so you can go on and live another day to do good and not be a pointless martyr. Such submission is not a justification of the reign of these earthly, slave powers, for nothing can ever justify such evil. Rather, it is purely strategic, like Christ and the fish coin tax. But being subject to the powers that be, while be, submitting to their pretend authority when absolutely necessary, when you are in the way with them as your adversary does not mean you must obey all their edicts when their edicts call you to do evil against your fellow man. Do what is right and let the consequences follow, even if the consequence brings you under their control, like Jesus was brought under the control of the Sanhedrin and Rome, the Apostles were subsequently brought under the control of Rome, or Alma and his people were brought under the control of the wicked priest of Noah, Amulon. Submission does not mean obedience, per se, when the laws of the land require you to do evil. When the “laws of the land” are in harmony with the laws/commandments of God, there is no need to break the laws of the land, as D&C 58 says. Rebellion against governments is not justified when the individual is protected in his rights, as D&C 134 says. But when not protected in one’s rights, and when the “laws of the land” require you to do that which is evil and aggress upon your fellow man, there is no commandment to be obedient to such laws; rather, there is only a commandment to submit when brought before your adversary, the earthly tyrannical rulers, unless God tells you to do otherwise or you have enough support behind to mount a proper and successful defense, whether with the support of God or the support of God thru your fellow man. There are times to rebel and right back and there are times to submit. You are certainly entitled to defend yourself if the government comes to aggress upon you, and you would be justified in doing so. But what would it avail you to fight back with violence when they overpowered you and would most certainly win and kill you? What is the point in being a martyr when survival is possible and thus you can live to fight another day in a better way by preaching the gospel of anarchy and voluntarism and submitting to their silly taxes and fines in order to do so? Romans 13 and D&C 58 are much less commandments to obey all edicts of earthly tyrants as they are commandments from God to do righteousness regardless of the consequences, which might sometimes bring you into the pathway of those earthly tyrants as it did him and his Apostles and other Prophets of old. They are not commandments from God to be “good, obedient slaves/citizens;” rather they are commandments to be good followers of Christ regardless of what those earthly tyrants do to you in response. While they reign, do good regardless of what they seek to do to you in return, but do your best to stay out of they way and off their radar, and don’t make yourself a purposeful target of their wrath, like Alma who went about teaching the people of wicked King Noah Abinidi’s words in secret in their houses or in the woods, out of the awareness of the “authorities.” And if possible to flee, flee when they do come after you, like Alma, Nephi, or Jesus and his family when Herod sought to kill all children age 2 in order to kill the Messiah, Jesus from taking his power. Otherwise, if they catch you, submit to them and live to fight another day if possible. Of course, it all depends on the context of the situation and each individual must make their own choices regarding compliance. But one thing is for certain, Romans 13 and D&C 58 do not tell you to become agents of the government, politicians who murder, rob, and enslave, nor members of their militaries or police forces who are the task masters of the nation state plantation. Nor do they tell you to snitch on people disobeying random “government edicts” and turn them over to the tyrannical authorities that be to be punished, robbed, tortured, and/or thrown in prison or be murdered or enslaved even further. They don’t tell you to be the neighborhood HOA Karen who acts as government’s tattletale & slave catcher for the illegitimate, evil powers that be. The message of Romans 13 and D&C 58 is most definitely not that these earthly tyrants and their governments are ordained of God and thus we owe them obedience in order to be obedient to God. Such an interpretation is utterly ridiculous and makes God into an evil tyrant himself, which he cannot be and be perfect just and merciful, as well as loving and desiring us to be free to choose Him or Satan.
Right of Self Defense: Alma 43:45-47, All 48:14-16
Much as has been discussed by now concerning the anarchist principle of self defense. All human beings have a right in their person, i.e. a right in their body and in their life, to not have it attacked or aggressively taken from them against their will. Thus, every human being has a right to self defense and to defend oneself using whatever means he has at his disposal in order to neutralize or stop the aggressing individual(s) from further aggression and harm toward him and his body. This right to self defense doesn’t just stop at attacks on the body, either. It applies to aggression and attacks against one’s other individual rights, whether concrete or abstract. Though, truth be told, attacks on one’s individual rights almost always include attacks on one’s person or landed &/or personal, non bodily property in the form of violence against the body. Not but 18 years into the Reign of the Judges, which was supposed to be an improvement upon monarchy by instituting “democracy” and a system of checks and balances, making each person responsible for whomever they voted to put into the judgment seat, we see again yet another attack on Nephite territories and the people by dissenter Nephites who left the Nephite religion, culture, and territories to be closer to the Laminates. These dissenter Nephites, lead by the Zoramites, Amalakites, and the descendants of the evil priests of wicked King Noah, stirred the Laminates up into a frenzy against the Nephites, for the purpose of dominating them and subjecting them as slaves to their rule as kings, bringing the Laminates out of their lands into the Nephite lands to attack them for the purpose of aggressive, hate filled subjugation. Why? Because Alma and his kids, along with others, were instrumental in converting many of the poorer Zoramites who had been cast out of their synagogues for their being poor to Christ and helping them flee Zoramite majority oppression to the safety of Nephite territory where they lived with the once Laminate but now converted to Christ “People of Ammon.” The Zoramites were angry Alma and his crew of preachers took a portion of their population away from them and challenged them on & preached against the Zoramite’s prideful, murderous, oppressive treatment of their own poor. Additionally, the Nephites had consistently defeated these breakaway, murderous, tyranny supporting Nephites (Zoramites, Amalakiates, the descendants of the priests of Noah, etc.) in battle every time they tried to bring the Laminates against them to attack them and take control of the throne of power over the Nephites. Every time they come against the Nephites, the Nephitese were righteous and thus bolstered in their self defense against the dissident Nephite and Lamanite attacks. This angered the dissident Nephites considerably, amplifying the murderous hatred they had for the righteous Nephites already and their goals of conquering and enslaving the Nephites for the sake of power.
The Nephites, on the other hand, as Alma 43 states, not only kept themselves well armed and well trained in defensive warfare, but were taught specifically never to be the aggressor and to use their weaponry and skill in warfare solely for defensive purposes, just as anarchist teaches. Alma 43:45-47 say:
45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a abetter cause, for they were not bfighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their cliberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.
46 And they were doing that which they felt was the aduty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: bInasmuch as ye are not guilty of the cfirst offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall adefend your families even unto bbloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.
Further, as Alma 48:14-16 state:
14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught anever to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.
15 And this was their afaith, that by so doing God would bprosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;
16 And also, that God would make it known unto them awhither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; bnot in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.
The Nephites were taught never to “give an offense,” or rather, never to aggress against others, to never be the attackers against others; they were taught also to never “raise the sword,” i.e. commit violence against others except it be against an enemy aggressor in order to preserve their lives. Is that isn’t a direct principle of anarchy, I don’t know what is. Anarchists are not non-violence. They most assuredly exercise violence against others. However, they are NOT aggressors. They are non-aggressors, not non-violent, for they are perfectly willing and able to exercise and deal out defensive violence against those who aggress first upon them if their lives and bodies are in danger, lifting up standards of peace whenever possible to the aggressors to get them to stop. For that is the remainder of the story of Alma chapters 43 & 44, where the Nephites, for the righteousness of their cause, are given strength to overcome the aggressing Laminates & their Nephite dissenter allies (Zoramites, Amalikites, and the descendants of the priest of Noah) to the point where the Nephites have them trapped on all sides near the River Sidon and offer the Laminates the olive branch of peace if they but surrender their weapons, enter into a covenant that they will no longer come against the Nephites in aggressive, violent invasion to conquer, and depart back to their own lands.
The leader of the Laminates, one Zarahemnah delivers up his weapons and offers to leave, but refuses to enter into a covenant to no longer aggress upon the Nephites in an attempt to slaughter and/or enslave them to his rule. The leader of the Nephite armies, one Moroni, the one who offered the deal of peace to begin with, handed back Zarahemnah’s weapons and said that unless the covenant of peace was entered into, that his Nephite armies would continue the fight until all the remainder of the aggressing Laminates actively attempting to enslave and slaughter the Nephites were slaughtered themselves. Zarahemnah is angered by the justice of Moroni, or rather, by Moroni meting out justice upon the aggressing Lamanites, Zarahemnah included, in defense against their aggressions so as to preserve his and his people’s lives since the Laminates refuse the covenant of peace to no longer aggress upon the Nephites. In this anger, he once again aggresses upon Moroni with his weapons handed back to him, and attempts to kill Moroni, wherein one of Moroni’s soldiers defends Moroni by blocking Zarahemnah’s attempted blows with his sword, breaking Zarahemnah’s sword in the process, and proceeds to scalp Zarahemnah. Zarahemnah, the coward that he is runs back into the crowd of his soldiers and the Nephite who scalped him picked up the scald and held it on his sword point, lifted it into the air, and reiterated that if the Laminates would not enter into a covenant of peace and depart, they would be put down to deathly to fall to the earth in justice just as Zarahemnah’s scalped had fallen to the earth. Some of the Laminates who saw this were brought by fear for their lives to enter into a covenant of peace and delivered up their arms and departed back to their own lands. The remainder were stirred up to anger by Zarahemnah to continue fighting, to die or conquer, as Zarahemnah had said, and the Nephite proceeded to slaughter them in turn since they would not enter into the covenant of peace to no longer aggress upon the Nephites. After a time of more fighting and slaughter of the Laminates at the hands of the better armed and armored Nephites, Zarahmenah finally is brought to his knees by the superior might and justice of the Moroni and his Nephite armies, they being the defenders of their lives, rights, and liberty against the aggressing Zarahemnah and his Laminates armies. Fearing for his life and seeing his cause of conquering and enslaving the Nephites defeated, he and the remainder finally agree to enter into the covenant of peace to no longer aggress upon the Nephites, give up their arms, and depart into the wilderness back to their own lands.
The non-aggressing Nephites, tho they were under their own form of slavery with their own throne of power, their system of judges, were still nonetheless a righteous people, i.e. living for the most part by the way of Christ and his ways of non-aggression and peace. And being the non-aggressors in the case of the invading Lamanites, they were entirely within their rights as individuals to defend themselves against the invading Laminates & their dissenting Nephite allies intent on killing and enslaving the Nephites and subjecting them to their rule under tyrannical monarchy. Moroni, knowing of these developments and intentions of the dissenting Nephites and Laminates to invade to conquer and enslave, sent out spies to determine where they would attempt their aggressing invasion, and proceeded to arm his Nephite armies not only with weaponry but with armor as well, breastplates, helmets, and armor for other parts of the body, and sent his armies to the places where the Laminates were amassing their own armies for invasion. And when the Laminates did indeed begin to attempt their slavish invasion, Moroni and his Nephites armies, tho being less numerous in number, proceeded to defend themselves against the Laminates attacks. And when the Nephites had surrounded the Laminates and saw the terror in the Lamanites’ eyes, Moroni ceased the killing and offered them a way out to preserve the lives of the Laminates, Moroni not being a man of bloodshed and preferring to preserve life as much as possible. He offered them their lives and freedom if they would but hand over their weapons used to aggress and invade, enter into a covenant of peace to no longer aggress upon the Nephites, and depart back to their own lands. When the Laminates refused this offer of peace and began attacking the Nephites again, the Nephites were entirely within their rights to proceed to slaughter the still aggressing Lamanites in self defense til they were all dead. This is the justice of anarchy. If one is being aggressed upon by another who is attempting to either kill or enslave the former, the former is entirely within their rights to defend themselves and their property, whether in land, possessions, or person, and their right to liberty from attack, even to the point of killing the aggressor until the threat of the aggressor is neutralized and eradicated. Moroni shows the way of peace in refusing to be a man of bloodshed, or rather, refusing to be a man who delights in bloodshed, by halting the slaughter in self defense once having the upper hand and offering the aggressors, the Lamanites, a way out of being destroyed for their aggressions. If the aggressor or aggressors continue to come against the one or ones defending themselves, the defender(s) are entirely within their right of self defense to continue to defend themselves, even unto the final killing, i.e. neutralizing the threat of the aggressor(s). This is simple justice & mercy, and justice and mercy is just as important in anarchy. And thus we see the principles of anarchy and voluntarism, the ways of God and Christ, continue to play out in the stories of the Book of Mormon, even though the Nephites themselves were not always in a state of anarchy and were themselves enslaved to their own throne of power, their own form of government, continuing like their Hebrew ancestors to insist upon men being their judges and teachers instead of God, depending upon the arm of flesh in the form of insisting on maintaining a human government and throne of power, i.e. their democratic system of judges with its alleged built in system of checks and balances. And this continued reliance upon a throne of power will, just as it had been in this particular episode with the dissenting, murderous, slaver Nephites and their Laminate allies, continue to to be a source of temptation for the worst types of evil, murderous, slaver criminals among the Nephite and Laminate societies to attempt to obtain possession by any means necessary so as to rule over and glut themselves off of the labor and property of their conquered slaves or murder them if they refused to be enslaved. Indeed, it was not but one year later after their victory over the aggressing Laminates, only 19 years into the supposed better system of the judges, that one such criminal arose yet again, seeking the Nephite throne of power for himself, being driven by pride, greed, and a stone cold, murderous heart, proving that regardless of the form of government or however many checks and balances one puts into place, it will continue to be a source of tyranny and slavery. This particular Nephite was named Amalakiah and his story will be examined next.
Amalakiah, Moroni & his Title of Liberty, and the Kingmen.
Beginning at the end of the Book of Alma, chapter 45, in the 19th year of the judges system, Alma departs this earth, leaving his son Helaman to take charge of the Church of Christ and the records kept and written by Alma, to continue writing spiritual things and the history of the people on. It was at this this time, literally just after the Nephites defeated another dissenting Nephite who sought the throne of power over Nephites and Lamanites, Zarahemna, that there began to be dissensions in the Church of Christ, where certain members began to grow prideful because of their wealth and stopped listening to the exhortations of Helaman & the teachers he had called to teach the people of the various churches in the various Nephite areas. They thus began to stop adhering to the peaceful ways of non-aggression, love, charity, and persuasion and began to grow hard in their hearts toward their fellow man, seeing themselves as better than others because of their wealth. On such dissenting, wealthy prideful member was Amalakiah. Amalakiah & those dissenting members with him became so angry with Helaman and his group of church teachers preaching the ways of Christ, i.e. peace, individual freedom, & non-aggression, likely calling out their sins and aggressions in the process, that he and his cohort of dissenters tried to kill Helaman and his group. Now the linchpin of information given in Alma Chapter 46 is that Amalakiah sought to be a king over the Nephites, and his followers wanted him to be king, to rule over them and the rest of the Nephites. What’s more, is that these dissenters who followed Amalakiah were lower level judges who held office as part of the judges system and they sought more power within that system of thrones of power. Amalakiah flattered them into supporting his rebellion of tyranny to be king, to sit on the highest throne of power over all the Nephites by offering them higher positions/thrones of power than they currently held under his new regime, making them rulers over the people under him. Now, if there had not already been a throne of power for Amalakiah and his followers to seek after, there would have been no temptation for those already in power to seek more. Therein, again, lies the danger of erecting thrones of power in the first place where some sit in power over others. It becomes a temptation for those who wish to rule over others and have control & power over them, to enslave them to their will, to seek such thrones. And thus we continue to see the prophecies and warnings of Samuel in 1 Samuel Chapter 8 in the Bible come to fruition. When mankind makes their fellow man their rulers, they reject a perfectly just and merciful God as their judge and replace him with fallible, passion/emotion and love of power, prestige and wealth driven human beings (to whom they are supposed to be equal) to rule over them as horrible, imperfect judges. And it’s little surprise when they turn out to be tyrants who want more power, more wealth, more prestige, and more control, and thus turn into slavers who regard not the fellow humanity & equality in rights & worth of those fellow human beings they enslave. And here we see with Amalakiah, that yet again, the system of judges with it’s “democracy” & its built in system of checks and balances failed to prevent the seeking of more power by current lower level judges to the point that they sought to obtain said higher thrones of power by seeking to overthrow the system and put Amalakiah on as their king. Some might try to argue that the system of democracy and checks and balances worked as it was supposed, necessitating their engagement of rebellion in seeking to overthrow the judges system and replace it with a monarchy. Perhaps it did; perhaps it didn’t. The Book of Mormon is silent on this. But the fact remains that it did not prevent people being tempted by higher positions/thrones of power & doing whatever was necessary to obtain them, within or outside the system.
Now Amalakiah took many Nephites with him to his side, but not nearly enough. For when Moroni, the same Moroni who just lead the Nephites to defeat the aggressing Lamanites & dissenting Nephites under Zarahemna, he went about stirring the people up in support of defending their judges system & thus attempt to defend themselves, their family, their religion, and their freedom and rights, i.e. their “liberty in the land.” Moroni took part of his coat, ripped it off, and wrote on it “in memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children,” and then fastened it on a pole and went among the Nephite people seeking those of like mind who would rally to his call to defend themselves against eh desired aggressions by the dissenting monarchic Nephites following Amalakiah. And many headed his call and took their armor and weapons and wrote similar things upon their coats, covenanting with each other to defend those things on Moroni’s “Title of Liberty” against the desired aggressions by the Amalakiahites. And when Amalakiah saw that the followers of Moroni and his Title of Liberty were more numerous than his supporters, and that his supporters were starting to question the justice of their cause, he took what followers he had left and departed into the wilderness to join the Laminates in their territories.
Now, Moroni seeking to defend their families and freedom from very likely aggressions by the Amalakiahites was perfectly fine and just. It was good for them to do so. However, Moroni and his followers had duped themselves into believing they already had freedom and liberty in the land under their system of judges, which put certain elected people in authority to rule over the rest of the people, i.e. they had erected thrones of power for some people to sit in power over the rest. When that is the case, when some people sit in power over others, with the potential to tyrannize them if they turn wicked, there is not true liberty and freedom in the land, especially when those offices of power, the judges, are paid from a system of taxation, which was very much likely the case with the Nephites system of judges. The problem Moroni and his followers made was that they sought to try to maintain their freedom by maintaining thrones of power for certain people to sit in authority and control over the rest, creating an inherently artificially unequal split in society that cannot be said to be free and equal. Freedom, rights, and liberty can never be long protected through such a system where some sit in authority and power over the rest & are funded by the forceful taking of people’s property to fund said thrones of power and those who occupy them, however they may be chosen. For as 1st Samuel says, a throne of power, be it a king or a democratically elected judge, will take the people’s property for his own use and will even taker the people themselves. At this point in the story, we have knowledge of whether military service in the Nephite judges system was mandatory, i.e. if there was conscription. Alma 46 does say that Moroni went about the people with his Title of Liberty, his coat fastened to a pole with his writings on it, in order to recruit people to his cause against the monarchic Amalakiahites, to prep for a fight. So it’s possible at this point in Nephite society there was no conscription and military service was voluntary. But the military did soon get involved, Moroni being its captain or leader, after Amalakiah and his few remaining followers fled for Laminate territory after seeing the majority of the people were against their cause to make Amalakiah king by force. But, the point remains, as shall be seen in future Book of Mormon chapters, that while Moroni’s cause was just, in preserving the rights and thus the liberty of the people, his method of how he did so, by aiming to preserve the system of the judges was not so wise. For, as long as you maintain thrones of power for some people to sit in authority and violent, coercive control over others, with said thrones being funded by coercively taken taxes, the rights and thus liberty of the individual cannot be safe. For they are violated to keep the thrones of power erect, even with good, just men sitting on them exercising their authority justly, and there always runs the risk of said thrones being hijacked by tyrants who care not a fig for the rights and liberty of the individual and will use said thrones to enrich themselves at the expense of those forced to pay for them and who are forcefully and unjustly brought before them. Now, Moroni was a good man, a just and merciful man, a VERY righteous man. But he was still a man, and a man of his time at that who did not grow up in a vacuum. He was raised under the system of the judges and thus likely had no reason to question its effectiveness at maintaining the rights of the individual, let alone its “legitimacy.” He was, by all accounts, a statist by default, as were all in his society, for that is all they knew, despite having the principles of anarchy right in front of those noses. They all, Moroni included, assumed “government” was necessary to “keep the peace & protect rights” without realizing that that very government, democratic and checks and balances protected as it was, inherently violated the rights of the individual in order to exist and thus did not “keep the peace” & protect the rights of the individual. So, we can have some mercy for Moroni in basing his Title of Liberty, his cause for the people’s liberty in the land, on maintaining the judges system from attack by monarchic and tyrannical forces by men such as Amalakiah. But, we can also still, in hindsight, look back and say that Moroni based his just cause for maintaining liberty and rights on a weak and dare I say sandy foundation. They Nephites were a much more righteous people than the Jews in the Kingdom of Judah, at least up til this point in the Book of Mormon timeline, but they were still as guilty of ancient Israel in desiring a human government where their fellow imperfect humans rule over them in positions of aggressive power instead of having God alone being their judge and leader/teacher. In that regard, the Nephites were still just as sinful, prideful, stubborn, and arrogant as the ancient Israelites in demanding a throne of power for their fellow human beings to sit in authority over them instead of God. Remember what Alma the Elder said just 2 generations before Moroni just after he and his converted people fled the society of wicked, tyrannical King Noah:
7 Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall anot esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.
13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the ahands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bbonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should cstand fast in this dliberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust eno man to be a king over you.
14 And also trust no one to be your ateacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.
15 Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should alove his bneighbor cas himself, that there should be no dcontention among them.
And remember what Mosiah said not long after Alma said the above:
12 Now it is better that a man should be ajudged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.
Thus while Moroni was an extremely good and righteous person, a man who did not delight in shedding blood, and though his cause was just, his methodology of achieving or obtaining his cause was not always the most wise of choices as it relied still upon maintaining thrones of power where fellow, imperfect human being rule over the rest in authority and aggression, which thrones were, in all likelihood, maintained by theft called “taxes.”
Once Amalakiah and his few devout followers fled for Laminate territory, Moroni, having just finished fighting a war where dissenting Nephites stirred up the Laminates to come upon them in aggression to kill and conquer them, he was desirous that this would not happen again. And thus he and his armies went out in search of Amalakiah and his followers in order to catch them and bring them back to Zarahemla to face justice. Moroni was very intent on not allowing Amalakiah to reach the Laminates and stir them up into rage yet again and convince them to attack the Nephites again in an aggressive act of war as had just happened. This is understandable on Moroni’s part. He’d just lead the Nephite armies in defensive force and battle against attacking Laminates and their dissenting Nephite allies who had convinced the Laminates to attack in the first place. And Amalakiah and his followers had just attempted to destroy the rights and liberty of the Nephites by making himself king over them. We don’t know how far his attempts came before he fled. We do know he acted upon his desires by getting lower level judges and others to support him. So while he may not have actually been able to try to institute his regime change by force and battle, he did at least pose enough of an active threat to do so that the Nephites felt threatened enough to take evasive action against Amalakiah’s actions. It’s doubtful that if Amalakiah had simply been a lone crackpot who went about preaching he should be king while having no followers that Moroni would have viewed him as a legit threat to the rights and liberty of the Nephites. Think of it this way: suppose your neighbor starts saying publicly that the neighborhood belongs to him/her and that he/she should king or president or whatever, that all the property of your neighbors, including yours, belonged to him. And imagine if he not only said these things, but rallied other neighbors to his/her cause in taking over the neighborhood, including your property, gathering together with weapons and flashlights in the neighborhood park and saying that they would proceed to attempt to take over the neighborhood properties as their own. And then you rally the rest of the majority of the neighborhood to join you in fighting for your individual properties should they actually start to attack. Your threatening neighbor sees you have more numbers on your side, and attempts to flee after making threats to conquer the neighborhood by force and acting on those threats to the point of rallying fellow neighbors and gathering in the park to discuss their plans and threats openly. Did your neighbor actually attack your properties and attempt to violently subjugate you? Not necessarily. But he did more than speak such ideas. He gathered a following and made plans on how and when to do initiate the attack and was only thwarted when he saw he was outnumbered and then fled. And when you see that that threatening neighbor has fled to another neighborhood that HAS actually attacked your neighborhood in an attempt to kill you, subjugate you, and steal your properties as their own, knowing full well that fleeing threatening neighbor and his followers will attempt to bring those already attacking neighbors down on you again, are you justified in going and catching him to defensively prevent it happening? I think a rational mind would say yes, you are justified, since there was more than just words uttered by a single man. There was a legit threat made by an armed gang against your lives, your rights, your liberty, and thus your property. The violent part of the attack may not have yet occurred, but it was also more than just words & ideas. An aggression had occurred in the acting on those words and ideas of monarchical conquering and enslaving by gathering followers and publicly setting specific plans to actually attempt to enslave the Nephites even if the actual violence part had yet to actually begin.
Now Moroni and his armies captured many of the Amalakiahites, but failed to nab Amalakiah himself. Amalakiah successfully made it to the Laminate civilization and proceeded to do exactly what Moroni knew he would do: stir up the Laminates to aggressively attack the Nephites and start another war for destruction and domination. We’ll get to what Amalakiah did in a minute. What Moroni did with all the captured Amalakiahites was bring them back to Zarahemla and make them enter into a covenant or promise that they would support the rights & liberty of the people and seek no more to destroy their rights and liberty or be put to death in response to their what actions they took to actually try to destroy the rights and liberty of the Nephites. There were few who did not take the oath offer by Moroni in exchange for their lives and amnesty for their previous actions against the rights and liberty of the people of Nephi. The few who refused to take the oath were put to death. Was putting them to death the right, morally just thing to do? That’s a debate that can be had. If they were unrepentant in trying to destroy the rights and liberty of the individuals that made up Neophyte society, and promised to try to destroy them again and again, showing no remorse or regret, perhaps death is a justified response? Or perhaps outlawing and banishment would have been a better choice? Its entirely debatable which response is better. But either way, the Nephites were entirely within their rights to respond in some fashion to those who actively tried to enslave them & destroy their rights and liberty. Making them swear an oath to support individual rights and liberty on pain of some kind of negative consequence if they refused to do so is fine; making them swear an oath to uphold the government of judges is an entirely different thing, for though Moroni and the Nephites thought it was a “free government,” there can in actually never be such a thing, for all governments must rely upon a certain degree of slavery, aggression, and theft in order to maintain its existence. They were entirely justified in capturing and making the Amalakiahites swear an oath to try to destroy the rights and liberty of the people no more. They were not justified in making the Amalakiahites swear allegiance to the judges system of government.
Getting back to Amalakiah, he successfully made to Laminate territory and immediately began organizing the Laminates to come again upon the Nephites in anger. However, this time, there were many of the Laminates who, perhaps recalling their recent failed attempt under dissenting Nephite Zarahemnah to enslave the Nephites, did not see any benefit for them in trying to do so yet again. They likely remembered the slaughter and death of the their fellow Laminates during their last attack and wanted nothing to do with it again, desiring to protect their own lives from pointless slaughter. They thus refused the king of the Lmamaite’s commands, upon the urging of Amalakiah, to arm themselves and go against he Nephites. Indeed, in order to successfully ignore this order from their king and Amalakiah, those Laminates who refused to attack the Nephites fled to the mountains to gather in protecting themselves from Laminate conscription. It was here that Amalakiah gained favor before the eyes of the Laminate king so that he was given control over the part of the Laminates army that adhered to the commandment of the king to prepare to go against the Nephites. He was then commanded to go and capture those “draft dodging” Laminates who fled conscription for the mountains and compel them to go and attack the Nephites. Now Amalakiah was a evilly strategic man. He didn’t just seek control over the Laminate armies. He sought to be king over all the Laminates and Nephites combined, and thus he began to scheme to do so using the authority, a throne of power, that he was granted over the Laminate armies to go and very literally enslave those Laminates who tried to escape conscription. The conscription refusing Laminates had armed themselves and gathered on a certain mountain high ground, prepared to battle Amalakiah and his Laminate armies should they attempt to ascend. But Amalakiah had a longer term goal in mind, dethroning the Laminate king, ands thus instead of giving battle to the conscription refusers, he himself went up the mountain near to the leader of the conscription refuser’s camp, one named Lahonti, and sent messengers to him to come out with his guards and meet with Amalakiah. With reservation, Lahonti took his guards and went to meet with him, wherein Amalakiah told Lahonti to take his own army and go down in the night and surround Amalakiah’s army. Amalakiah’s only request was that Lahonti, in taking control of all the Laminates armies, both his own and the one he would surround and compel to surrender, make him, Amalakiah, second in command of the armies under Lahonti. Lahonti, not a very wise person, did just this, and thus fell exactly into Amalakiah’s trap. Lahonti’s armies surrounded Amalakiah’s and they pleaded to be spared and join the conscription refusing army under Lahonti, wherein they were granted this request, with Lahonti becoming the new commander of the fully combined Laminate army and Amalakiah his second in command. Of course, Amalakiah was not content with playing second fiddle. So he sent assassins to murder Lahonti by administering poison to him by degrees and when he finally died, Amalakiah, ascended once again to the top commanding rank over the armies. All according to his plan to seize the Laminate throne by degrees. Straight way Amalakiah marched his armies back to the Laminate capitol city to meet with the Laminate king. But instead of Amalakiah going himself, he sent his servants to meet the king who had come out assuming Amalakiah had achieved the command he was given to compel the fleeing Laminates to arms & conscript them. As the two servants of Amalalkiah bowed themselves to reverence the king, he granted that they may rise. In rising, one of Amalakiah’s servants killed the king and started shouting that the king’s own guard has killed him, causing them flee in fear for their own lives. Amalakiah’s murdering servants pointed to the king’s guard fleeing as proof that it was they who had done it, and the surrounding Laminate people believed their words. All according to plan, Amalakiah marched his armies forward to the spot where the king lay dead in his own blood and pretended to be extremely angry at the king’s death, pleading with all that whoever loved the king go and pursue the fleeing king’s guard and bring them back to be killed. The guard was never found or captured, for they had fled to the Nephite territories to join the once Laminate people of Ammon in the land of Jershon. The Laminate pursuers returned empty handed. When they did so, Amalakiah went to he Laminate queen and took the very same servants who killed her husband to testify to how the king was killed, lying to her that it was the king’s own servant who did the foul deed and using all his corroborating “witnesses” to persuade her. She was persuaded and she married Amalakiah and he was made king over all the Lamanites, using fraud, deception, murder, and intrigue to obtain his goal of power over all the Lamanites. But such murdering, tyrannical power mongers are never satisfied in their acquisitions of power for long, and Amalakiah was no exception. He wanted revenge against Moroni and the Nephites for denying him his first goal of the Nephite throne of power, i.e. kingship over them. And he wanted that Nephite throne badly to add to his already achieved Laminate throne. He was intent on doing exactly as Moroni had done to him, overpower him and the Nephites by sheer numbers, having the advantage of numbers on his side, and violently conquer and enslave the Nephites and Laminates under his reign. And this is exactly what he did. He stirred up the Laminates to anger against the Npehites, reciting all their lies about Nephi and his brethren and how they wronged and robbed their own fathers Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, agitating for them to go to war against the Nephites. This might sound quite familiar to those who know of WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnamese, and Afghanistan and Iraqi war propaganda, all based on partial truths bust mostly lies that stirred up the American people to desire to go to war with Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and later Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, it’s happening before our very eyes with the Israel-Gaza war wherein Israel is being painted by Western powers, especially America, as innocent little victim who was simply doing nothing but minding her own business when these evil Palestinians just decided out of the blue to viciously attack Israel unprovoked. The Book of Mormon truly was made for our times as a warning against such “secret combinations” conspiring for power and domination. This term “secret combinations” will appear more frequently shortly as we proceed forward in the Book of Mormon timeline.
The righteousness and fallibility of Moroni:
Chapters 48 & 50 of the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon show wonderfully the fallible humanity of even the most righteous of people who are the most zealous of liberty. We have discussed some of Moroni’s flaws as well as the flaws of his predecessors and successors in their still choosing to make their fellow imperfect human beings their judges and rulers instead of God being their judge, even though they very likely had in the Brass Plates what is to us today 1 Samuel chapter 8 and its condemnation of Israel choosing a king over God being their judge. Perhaps, and very likely, they never questioned having no human government whatsoever, since they were born, raised, lived and died living under a human government of some form, either monarchy or, as in the time of Moroni, the democratically selected judges system with built in checks and balances. So, this is not entirely surprising. But we see more of this human fallibility that is likely the result of being raised under the slavery of a human government come from Moroni, who was evidently an extremely good and righteous person who was over zealous in protecting liberty in the land. Specifically, Alma 48 says of Moroni that he was a strong and mighty man, a man of perfect understanding (extremely wise, intelligent, and talented, not that he was perfect in that he made no mistakes), one who did not delight in bloodshed, and whose should delighted in the liberty and freedom of his country and his neighbors in keeping them out of slavery to wicked tyrants like Amalakiah and the Lamanites. He was a man of his word, and he had sworn an oath to protect his people in their liberty, rights, and religion, even to the sacrificing of his own life in defense of the aforementioned. Indeed, the and writer and compiler of this chapter says of Moroni that “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, even the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.” This is an interesting assertion to make about Moroni. He was, no doubt a very decent person, as the scriptural record indicates, and he gloried in Christ and living like Christ. But, he was also a bold supported of human government, particularly the judges system of the Nephites, and fought to uphold it and bolster it as the means of preserving the liberty and rights of the people. Now the judges system was no less a form of slavery than the government of the Laminates or the any other kind of human government the world over. Perhaps it was a better system of human government than most forms in existence at the time, just as the US Constitution is the best for of human government in existence today. But slavery they are all still, in varying degrees, for they all erect thrones of power for elitist ruling classes to occupy, rule over everyone else with a monopoly on power & violence, stealing from those being ruled over in order to fund and maintain, even grow it’s existence. Furthermore, besides being a devote statist, even if only a minarchist, or, rather, a limited government statist, Moroni had no concept of property outside the nation. He had a concept of individually owned property, yes, but within the idea of the nation. He viewed his nation, his country as having territory and property, land that belonged collectively to the Nephites while the Laminates had their own “territory.” Moroni was a nation-stater. He believed in national, statist borders. He appears to have had no concept of homesteading unowned land, regardless of where it lay, a key principle of anarchism. And we need look no further than Alma 50 to see this further evidence of Moroni’s statism. Moroni was no anarchist, or rather, nothing of the sort of what we would today call and anarchist. He was a very decent person who valued liberty, but he was still nonetheless a statist in believing in the sovereignty of the “nation” under a “democratic” system of checked and balanced human government. In Alma 50, Moroni sends the military troops he was given power over by the Nephite government into the east wilderness to clear it of all Laminates living there, upon which he sent settlers from Zarahemla to go and occupy and possess the land for themselves. Now, it’s possible that the Laminates in that East wilderness were remnants of the wave that came upon the Nephites and sought, under the direction of Amalakiah, to conquer, slaughter, and enslave the Nephites, in which case Moroni might possibly have some justification in clearing them out and sending them back to the Land of Nephi where the rest of the Laminates dwelled, from an anarchist view of justice. But, if those Laminates were simply non-aggressing Laminates who merely moved into unpossessed and thus unowned wilderness territory and claimed it as their own, homesteading the land, and had never aggressed against the Nephites in any way, then Moroni essentially stole their land so as to claim it for the Nephite government and give it to settler Nephites in a act of colonialism. The scriptures are silent as to who exactly these Laminates were, so it’s not possible to know exactly whether Moroni was justified in clearing out of the East wilderness or not. But, the possibility remains high that they were just regular, peaceful, non-aggressing Laminates who had homesteaded that wilderness, making it their own, according to anarchist, natural law principles, and Moroni came in an aggressed upon them, driving them out with violence, stealing their land, and taking the land for Nephite settlers to come in. If this is the case, then Moroni was the aggressor here, for there was nothing in the laws of nature that say those Laminates couldn’t homestead and claim that land as their own, as individuals, so long as they were not using it as a base to launch attacks on the Nephites. Again, the Book of Mormon gives us no clue as to who these Laminates were, so we can only speculate. It’s very possible that were they peaceful, non-aggressing Laminates who had merely homesteaded that east wilderness as their own, Moroni feared they could POSSIBLY be aggressive in the future, collectively lumping them in with all the other Laminates, & thus attempted to justify in his mind and the minds of his soldiers and the government his clearing them out of that East wilderness as they COULD POTENTIALLY become aggressive. But the POTENTIAL to aggress, even if based off of prior experience with a specific group of people, is NO justification to aggress upon them first. Indeed, the Book of Mormon teaches this in Alma 48 just before launching in to the lauding of the positive qualities of Moroni. It says specifically concerning the rules and teachings regarding Nephites & violence that it is only justified defensively, to repel an attacker, and that Nephites were never to be the aggressor/attacker:
14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught anever to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.
15 And this was their afaith, that by so doing God would bprosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;
16 And also, that God would make it known unto them awhither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; bnot in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.
So, it’s confusing here to see Moroni potentially being the one giving offense in going in to the East wilderness and clearing the Laminates out of it. Without more context, Moroni could be the great defender and bringer of justice against Laminates who had already attacked and fled or were preparing to attack. Or it could be that Moroni was the aggressor here, driving out peaceful Laminate homesteaders of unowned land that was not in use and claimed by any individual Nephite specifically. It would be odd and out of character for Moroni to do the latter, since he was not a man of blood and was so zealous in not being the aggressor/giver of the offense/initial raiser of the sword. But, remember, Moroni, like all the other righteous Book of Mormon characters, was still a fallible human being that was not raised in a vacuum. He was already a statist, a believer in maintaining human government, which, while it claimed to establish freedom, rights, and justice and only exercise judgement & administer justice against those who had committed an actual crime, still needed to be funded itself by some form of taxation. And remember, taxation is theft and a crime itself, necessary in order to pay all those judges who sat in judgement over their fellow human beings, thus created an artificial hierarchy of power given a monopoly on violence to ensure it’s maintained existence, if not growth. So, whichever way the East wilderness incident with Moroni is to be interpreted (and it could potentially go either way given what knowledge of context is provided in the Book of Mormon), Moroni was still and imperfect man who still made mistakes in believing that the liberty and freedom of his people could only be achieved in preserving a form of slavery & crime in itself via maintaining the judges system, a form of human government that funded itself and its monopoly on violence via theft, erecting thrones of power for some human bings to sit in power over others, thus creating an inherently artificial inequality, the very thing the system of the judges was supposed to eradicate by replacing monarchy. Moroni, despite his righteousness and Christlike qualities, still sought to place his fellow man, fallible and imperfect as he, as his judge instead of God, hearkening back to 1st Samuel chapter 8. And as we will see, this continuing to maintain the throne of power via the judges system will continue to bring plagues of violence upon the Nephite society as the worst of the worst tyrants and lovers of powers amongst them seek to claim it as their own to use for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. Again, this is one of the principal warnings & lessons of the Book of Mormon meant for the latter-day Gentiles, us, you and me, to be leery of believing in salvation through flesh and human government, for it is a plague that only destroys in the end. For this is what we see throughout all of the Book of Mormon: cautions against erecting thrones of power that become temptations for people to seek to control and thus starting wars and genocides over in their attempts to wield that power for themselves or their in-groups over everyone else. Whether it be monarchy or representative government, the same patterns of fighting over control of it, even to bloodshed and murder, in order to subjugate all others play out every single time. I believe this is a principal lesson we today are supposed to learn from the Book of Mormon: beware human government and instead organize yourselves and your societies differently upon the principles of anarchy and voluntarism taught therein by the prophets prophesying of Christ and his ways of living.
Of course, critics, especially those who are up in arms about the border situation in the US circa 2024, would say there is nothing wrong with what Moroni did, even if the Laminates hadn’t aggressed and weren’t aggressing against the Nephites and were simply there homesteading the East wilderness land as their own, as individuals. Perhaps they would say, like modern day conservatives that the land was “Nephite territory,” even if unoccupied and unused, and since it was Laminates occupying it, and ALL Laminates were dangerous and potential threats, Moroni was entirely right to go and clear them out of the East wilderness just like ICE today or any other government agency or authority is right to clear “illegal immigrants” out the US border lands or stop them from crossing over the border. Such would be a morally and unChristlike thing to do and opinion to have, for such is aggression. Many conservative leaning libertarians make this same mistake in collectivizing land that is in actuality unowned by anyone. Just like most of our borderlands in the US today, the East wilderness, from the word “wilderness” itself was unowned by anyone, save those apparent Laminates who had moved in to the area. Whether they had actually homesteaded the land and claimed it as their own, as individuals, is unknown, but as the first occupants, we can give them the benefit of the doubt that they probably did claim it as theirs. Many what we today call “bordertarians,” libertarians who favor a closed border until the state and its welfare and tax system is abolished, and use as their basis for such claims the fact that the tax payers themselves, who are being extorted/stolen from by the state are the rightful owners of the unoccupied/unused borderlands in compensation for what the state stole from them. And as the “rightful owners” to those “public borderlands,” they have the right to determine who can cross those lands and who can’t, according to the “will of the people.” This is what is referred to as “net tax payer theory,” as put forward by Hans Herman Hoppe, a prominent libertarian/anarchist theorist for our modern day. The problem with this theory is that what the tax payers are owed in compensation for being extorted by the state & its coercive tax system is, first and foremost, their money back, and if that isn’t possible, then it must be something that the state itself owns. But this is an impossibility as the state itself can own nothing legitimately that it hasn’t taken from someone else by force or simply claimed as theirs by force, disallowing anyone else from using it. The state, i.e. human government in whatever iteration or form it comes, has no right to exist and nothing it does can be legitimate as it operates solely off of aggression/violent coercion, theft, or threats thereof. Thus, the state/government can own nothing. Only individuals or groups of consenting, voluntary individuals can own things and property, not mythical organizations that exist solely because of and to make threats upon the property, lives, and liberty/rights of others. Thus, whatever empty lands the state has claimed “authority” and “control” over as “public land,” whether state land, county land, municipal land, or federal land, is in actuality unowned land as a coercive government can own nothing legitimately. They may control it, but they do not own it. And as such, the state cannot give to tax payers for compensation of theft of their property something they do not and cannot own. Thus, those empty, unused/unoccupied land belongs in actuality to no one, and as such anyone is free to traverse across said lands or even homestead chunks for their own use and preservation of their lives. For, this is how property is created. It is created when one person or a group of people decide to claim a chunk of real property, i.e. land, or something from the land, as their own, mixing their labor with it and making it clear to others in some fashion that it is henceforth his/hers/theirs alone. He/she/they have exclusive control over it to the exclusion of all others. And in mixing labor with that land & claiming it, continually incorporating it into one’s property, one creates title to the land. One may thus continually use it and incorporate it into one’s other property, one may sell it to a willing buyer, thus transfer title through purchase, or one may abandon it and relinquish claim to it, thus depositing the land & all on it back into a state of nature wherein anyone else can come a claim it as their own. This is libertarian property theory, pulled from the British philosopher John Locke at its most basic understanding. So, governments cannot own property or anything, and thus they cannot compensate extorted taxpayers with something they do not own and therefore can only compensate tax payers with the thing that was taken from them in the first place, i.e. their money (or property if land was taken via eminent domain). Thus, anyone and everyone is free to cross said “public borderlands” at their will and pleasure or actuality claim chunks of it as their own via homesteading. This exactly what Lehi and his family did when they traveled from Jerusalem to the land Bountiful in the Middle East, and then did the same thing when they crossed the oceans and came to the Americas. Upon arrival, they homesteaded unoccupied and unused and thus unowned land, worked it, mixed their labor with it, and claimed it as their own, creating title to it. And when Nephi and his followers were forced to flee that first land of their inheritance, which became known as the Land of Nephi, claimed by the Lamanites as their own, due to his brothers trying to kill him and his followers, they left into the wilderness and homesteaded new lands for their inheritance, just as they had with their first land of inheritance they were forced to flee. They could have obviously went back and claimed their first lands of inheritance in the Land of Nephi, but realizing it was better to put space between them and Nephi’s murderous brothers and their allies the sons of Ishmael, for the safety of everyone since there was so much available unowned land to claim, they chose the latter option.
So, if these Laminates were not aggressing and had simply moved in to the empty East wilderness claimed by the Nephites, they were completely within their rights as individuals to do so and Moroni going and forcing them off that land so Nephite settlers could come and possess it was aggression on Moroni’s part, even if those Laminates posed a POTENTIAL future threat. Potential threats are not aggression and thus violent force cannot justly be used to prevent them from becoming actual violence. If those Laminates had been part of the aggressing group lead by Amalakiah and sent to kill the Nephites and enslave them, and who later fled to the East wilderness and homesteaded the property, it could possibly be argued that Moroni was justified in clearing them out and claiming the land for Nephites as compensation for the lives and property those Laminates had destroyed in their aggressive war upon the Npehites. But, again, we do not know who those Laminates were and the circumstances of how they came to be in the East wilderness as the Book of Mormon is silent on their arrival and what they were doing there. We know from the story of the people of Ammon and the guards of the Laminate king Amalakiah killed that not there were good, peaceful, righteous Laminates, so not all Laminates could be considered dangerous and war mongers, even if many were. And there were many times the Laminates in the Land of Nephi did not seek to go to war with the Nephites. So Moroni must have known that collectivizing all Laminates as dangerous war mongers intent on invading and harming the Nephites was unjust to do. And yet he cleared them out anyway. There is just so much context we lack to make a firm judgement on Moroni’s actions as to whether it was justified or aggression. Thus it is entirely up to guesswork as to whether what Moroni did in clearing them out was aggression, justified reclamation of land as compensation for previous crimes against the Nephites committed by those specific Lamanites or aggression they were currently in the process of committing or actively planning to commit.
Now compare this scenario of the East wilderness with another scenario of dissenting Nephites running other Nephites off of their land and properties found in Alma chapter 50. The Nephites set up two cities near each other, one called Lehi and the other called Morianton. In the 22nd year of the judges system, there was a squabble over land between the peoples of these two cities, Morianton saying they had a claim to land that the people of Lehi claimed. The people of Morianton, lead by a man named Morianton took up arms in order to violently claim the land in Lehi he claimed rightly belonged to Morianton, and in so doing he, sought to kill the people of Lehi, or in the least, kill those on the disputed land. The people occupying the land in question, Lehites, fled to where Moroni and his armies were and sought his assistance. He agreed to help and marched his armies to the disputed area, upon which Morianton and his armed followers fled into the north wilderness. Now, as to who justly owned the land in dispute, verse 27 of Alma chapter 50 says that as the people of Lehi who possessed the land and were driven off by the armed gang of Morianton intent on killing them were the rightful owners, for it says that “they were not in the wrong,” implying that it was Morianton who was in the wrong. Additionally, the current occupier of a property is given the benefit of the doubt that he/she/they are the legit owners unless it can be proved otherwise that the land rightfully belongs to someone else & was stolen from them or them were unjustly removed from ownership over it. Thus, the people of Morianton taking up arms to steal property away from others that wasn’t rightfully theirs was an aggression, as was the attempt to try to murder them. So there were two aggression, theft and murder. When Morianton heard that Moroni and his army were coming, he attempted to flee northward and possess the land northward near the city of Moroni. Moroni himself feared that the people of the city of Moroni would fall undertake sway of Morianton and thus pose a threat to the liberty and freedom of the Nephites, so he followed Morianton and his followers, a battle ensued in which Morianton was killed and the survivors of his followers were brought back to the camp of Moroni’s army. It was hear that Moroni gave them the option of going back to their properties in Morianton and ceasing their attempts to aggress against their neighbors in the city of Lehi or face justice. They chose the former and they were restored in mercy to their properties in Morianton and Morianton and Lehi formed an alliance with each other to keep the peace. Verse 36 says the two cities “formed a union,” whatever that might mean. Moroni in this case was entirely justified in pursuing Morianton and his gang of thieves and attempted murderers who stole the property from the owners in the city of Lehi and attempted to kill them and bringing them to justice for their crimes. Moroni’s military leader who did the pursuing, one Teancum, was entirely justified in killing Morianton when Morianton gave them battle instead of submit peacefully to face the consequences of his actions in being dealt justice by Moroni. Morianton had no just claim to the lands in Lehi, according to context, and even if he did, taking up arms to go and kill the current occupants is not within the laws of justice. One must first attempt non-lethal conflict resolution and only use lethal force as the last resort when it comes to reclaiming property that has been stolen from them. If Person A steals the property of Person B, Person B has the obligation to attempt to retrieve it as peacefully as possible first before jumping to more escalated and violent forms of retrieval. Now in the actual attempt of Person A to steal the property Person B kills Person A in defense of his property, that is a different matter altogether. But, after the thieving has occurred and Person A is now in possession and is not actively and violently aggressing upon Person B, Person B has an obligation, like Nephi in his attempts to obtain the Brass Plates from Laban, to try to reclaim his property as peacefully as possible before resorting to violence and lethal action. But we know Morianton was in this case the aggressor, and thus Moroni sending a group out to stop him fleeing justice and being held accountable for his crimes of theft and attempted murder was entirely justified according to the principles of anarchy. And that Morianton brought violence against Teancum and perished in the process is no one’s fault but his own. Had he submitted to Teancum peacefully, he might have been granted mercy as well since no one actually had been murdered and all that had been done was theft of property. But Morianton chose the path of continued violent aggression and paid the consequences of that choice with his life, as did all others who did not submit to the “posse” sent after them to bring them to justice. There are many critics of anarchism that say anarchists/voluntarists are pacifists and don’t believe in violence. This is not the case. Anarchists believe violence is sometimes justified, but only under certain circumstances, i.e. in self-defense or defense of others and in the case of bringing justice to a victim of crime, that is, an act of aggression, by capturing the criminal(s) so as to bring him/her/them to justice and provide restitution to the victim. How that plays out, or rather, how the criminal is brought to justice & made to pay restitution is a separate debate in and of itself. But as anarchists believe in justice and restitution, that victims be made as whole as possible by the individual or group of individuals who committed the aggression against them, they do believe in using violence and coercion only under justified circumstances, i.e., when there is an aggression and a harm to a victim that caused a loss to said victim. Normally, anarchists would prefer aggressors willingly repent and pay back restitution to their victims, but anarchists are not opposed to bringing unwilling aggressors to justice when they try to escape it without having paid back restitution. Peaceful resolution is always the first and preferable means to disputes involving an aggressor and a victim, but defensive and restorative violence (violence used to restore losses to a victim by the aggressor) is always on the table as a last resort if needs be. In the case of Morianton, some may attempt to argue that once he left the land of Lehi to flee north, his victims were restored to their lands and thus restitution had been made and Moroni should have left him alone to flee to the land north. The problem with this is that it’s A.) entirely possible Morianton’s gang fled north with the moveable, chattel property of the people of Lehi, having stolen it. The Book of Mormon is silent on this issue, but it’s a very real possibility. But, also B.) this event took place over a period of time where the people of Lehi were unable to occupy their properties for that length of time and thus were unable to plant their crops and harvest them, preparing for the seasons. Thus they were robbed of more than just their landed property for a time. They were robbed of anything they would have used their landed property to produce for themselves, whether to use for themselves or sell in the market. Therefore, they were owed in restitution by Morianton and his gang of aggressors more than just the landed property that was stolen from them. Hence, sending out the “posse” to bring them back to justice was, again, entirely justified. Moroni didn’t want Morianton and his gang of thieves and murderers allying with and stirring up the people of the north to anger & war against the Nephites in the lands of Zarahemla, this is ture. But another primary reason mentioned in the Book of Mormon as Moroni’s goal in going after and capturing Moriatnon’s and gang was to bring them back to justice for their crimes, their aggressions. That Moroni wanted to bring them back to face the judges may be an issue, as the system was likely built upon some level of aggressive coercion itself. If he was trying to bring them back so that they would be put in prison, then what would be the point of that? Imprisonment as justice does not grant any of the victims any real form of restitution and actually costs the victims to feed and house the prisoners, their aggressors. If Moroni sought to bring them back to face justice in some form where they actually paid restitution for their aggressive harms against the people of Lehi, that would be perfectly justified.
We must remember that under anarchist/voluntarist theory, coercion and violence in and of itself is not prohibited. Aggressive coercion & violence is strictly prohibited, but defensive coercion/violence or coercion/violence in the name of justice in order to bring an aggressor to justice and bring restitution out of him or her to the victim is perfectly justices under anarchist/voluntarist theory. Not only is using violence and coercion in order to neutralize an actual threat or act of aggressive violence justified, but capturing the aggressor in order to bring about justice through restitution, outcasting, or some other form justice aside from mere imprisonment is also completely justified. Otherwise, aggressors would just run away free and not have to face the consequences of their aggressions and would be free to simply aggress over and over again. It only makes logical sense coercion and violence used for defensive or judicature purposes is justified under anarchy. So, Moroni was entirely justified to pursue Morianton and bring him back to justice for his aggressions against the people of Lehi. The form that justice would take is another argument altogether. What actually occurred according to the record in Alma 50:36 is that Moroni’s man Teancum pursued Morianton’s gang and instead of surrendering, Morianton fought Teancum, and Teancum and his men fought back in self defense, during which battle Morianton himself was killed. The rest of his men were taken prisoner and taken back to Moroni is the land of Lehi where they were given the option of covenanting to keep the peace, upon which they would be given back their lands in Morianton, a very merciful option of justice exercised by Moroni, and eventually a union between the two lands of Lehi and Morianton was form in order to transact commerce and protect each other.
Once the Morianton issue was handled, the chief judge Nephihah died and a new chief judge was voted upon to take up the office and made to covenant to judge righteously in justice and bring the wicked to justice according to their crimes. This new judge was named Pahoran. And his election to the office brought a completely new form of civil strife and more fighting over the throne of power through a new threat called the “Kingmen,” which make their appearance in Alma chapter 51. The kingmen are a group of Nephites who wished to alter the law so as to establish a king again instead of democratically elected judges. They petitioned Pahoran to alter the law, which he of course refused to do (it would take away his throne of power, after all, but we could give Pahoran the benefit of the doubt of actually being a decent guy and caring more about preserving the rights of the people than his seat of power). The kingmen became angry and demanded Pahoran be removed from the judgement seat, and there began to be a a civil strife between the two factions fighting over the throne of power, the kingment and the freemen, the freemen being the supporters of keeping the judges system as it was and keeping Pahoran in the judgment seat as chief judge. Now, the kingmen wanted a king. They wanted power themselves. They wanted to erect a dictator and tyrant who would likely give them positions of power under his regime. The freemen, however, said they supported the side of maintaining a “free government.” A “free, aggressively coercive government that relies on taxation, as the judges system very likely did,” is a contradiction in terms. As long as we define government as one group of human beings given a monopoly on violence and an enforcer class to enforce their dictates via violence and threats thereof, which is financed by theft, called taxation, calling such a “free government” only because it claims to protect the rights of the individual and may actually do so better than other governments does not make it a “free government.” The only “free government” possible is anarchy/voluntarism, wherein each individual sovereign over themselves and thus own themselves and their rights that derive from owning themselves and having no one put in some artificial position of authority over them maintained by threats of violence against them. So that the freemen called themselves such and claimed they were fighting to preserve a “free government” is not entirely true or accurate. They may have been fighting against the kinsmen to preserve a system of aggressively coercive government that allowed for and ensured more freedom and individual rights than a monarchy, but as long as the government they were fighting to preserve put one group of people into positions of power over the rest where they could issue dictates attempting to govern how people lived their lives and seize their property in the form of taxes to fund said positions of power, all of which were backed up by an enforcer class given special permission to issue threats of or commit violence on those who didn't comply with said “laws,” said government was anything but “free.” It may have been better in preserving rights and freedom than monarchy, but it was far from being a “free government.” The people of Nephi, despite their righteousness and wisdom and despite having the Brass Plates which very likely contained what we know today as 1st Samuel chapter 8, still had not learned the lesson God had been trying to teach the ancient Israelites of the dangers of putting human being into positions that only should belong to God, replacing and rejecting God as their law giver in favor of a fellow fallible human being, putting their trust in the arm of flesh instead of God. The people of Nephi still had not learned that lesson, the lesson of the dangers of erecting thrones of power and placing fallible, passion driven men onto such thrones of power. It’s a lesson they would sadly never learn, at least not until Christ himself came and instituted a 400 year period of anarchy and voluntarism. So, they stubbornly continued on with the game of throne struggles inherent in erecting thrones of power, and the king-men vs. freemen was just another current version of said game of thrones struggle for the throne & its power. The so-called “freemen” won out in the end, the “voice of the people” supporting their cause in preserving the system of the judges as it was and keeping Pahoran in the chief judge seat. The king-men were obviously not happy with the outcome, but it appears they realized they were outnumbered and would be defeated if they openly rebelled through violence. So they had to comply…for now. But while this king-men-freemen dispute was going on, Amalakiah, the tyrannical, murderous Nephite defector who defected to the Laminates gathered another large Laminate army and began to march down to Zarahemla to aggressively attack and try to conquer and enslave the Npehites. The king-men, hearing news of this, refused to take up arms & help defend their fellow Nephites from the Lamanites, very likely hoping the Laminates would send a sufficient force that they could join and receive aid in overthrowing Pahoran and the judges system and installing themselves as kings and rulers over the people of Nephi. Moroni’s action in return regarding these king-men who refused to take up arms to defend their fellow Nephites from the Laminate attack is somewhat problematic and must be fleshed out a bit, since he basically petitioned Pahoran to give him power to compel the king-men to take up arms in defense of the land or be put to death. This is problematic because it was essentially Moroni requesting permission from Pahoran, the chief judge, to conscript, AKA enslave these king-men, taking control of their property in their bodies, & force them to fight for him and the Nephites against their hoped for allies, the aggressing Lamanites. What ended up happening is Moroni was granted permission by the chief judge and by the voice of the people to do enact his plans regarding the king-men, he and his armies marched to them, tried to force them to fight or die, in which the king-men fought back and 4000 king-men ended up being killed and the small remainder covenanted to take up arms in defense of the judges system and Pahoran, which they styled “the free government.” For certain, the king-men were in no way innocent and had several times attempted to install themselves as kings, AKA tyrants & rulers over the people of Nephi by seeking to democratically overthrow Pahoran and the the system of the judges. Their were not seeking necessarily to overthrow an extremely tyrannical government in favor of installing freedom. They sought the throne of power and wished to see themselves placed on it so they could have authority over the people and elevate themselves above them as some kind of monarchic-aristocracy of some sort. Their desires and goals regarding dethroning Pahoran were anything but moral and good. And while they were glad the Laminates were coming to invade, they were, technically speaking, under no obligation to take up arms to defend themselves or others. Morally, we should all seek to defend the rights of others from aggression, even to using defensive force if necessary, so they may have an a moral obligation to take up arms in defense of themselves and their fellow Nephites, especially since they had no way of knowing the invading Laminates simply wouldn’t just kill them right along with all the other Nephites, not caring about their intentions to be kings & rulers. Amalakiah and the Laminates could’ve very well seen them just as much unwanted competition as allies and could’ve very well have slaughtered them too instead of uniting with them. But, at the same time, no one can nor should be violently forced to put oneself in harm’s way in attempt to defend himself/herself or others. One has a moral obligation to protect the rights of others, but one cannot justly be forced to actually do so. If one does not wish to take up arms in defense of their rights or the rights of others, they should not be violently coerced into doing so via conscription and threats of death if they don’t comply. It is my opinion that Moroni was not justified in taking his armies with the purpose of enslaving these king-men and forcing them to fight for the Nephite army in defense of the Nephite lands and society, nor was he justified in putting them to death or harming them in any way, at least so long as these king-men didn't actually take up their weapons and fight alongside the invading Lamanites or voice intention of doing so. That may very well have been their plan, but it had not yet actually occurred & we have no knowledge of whether they had voiced an intention of doing so. From the context we are given, all they were guilty of at this specifically point was trying to make themselves kings by vote of the people & cowardice in refusing to take up arms in defense against the incoming Laminate attack. Since they had not actually raised their swords against Pahoran, Moroni, and the “freemen,” they hadn’t actually committed an aggression as of yet. They had, yes, attempted to gain public support in overthrowing Pahoran and placing themselves into positions of power over the people as kings. But did that merit them being conscripted & being forced to fight the invading Laminates or be put to death? It definitely merited some form of justice and restitution for their attempts, even if their attempts were not successful, as their attempts went beyond mere voicing their opinions. They actually stirred up the people & tried to get them to support dethroning Pahoran, ultimately losing because they did not have the numbers. Their attempts clearly went beyond a matter of mere “free speech” & statement of opinion. Though it did not result in bloodshed at that point, it could have been that the king-men were making actual plans to gain followers and actually violently overthrow Pahoran and his freemen 9f they had enough support, making actual threats of violence and aggression should the “voice of the people” be on their side. It’s logical to say that in their attempts to get the voice of the people to change the law so they could make themselves kings over the people, they were making actual threats of violence against the rights of the people since monarchy in and of itself is tyrannical and relies just as much, if not more so on violent aggression to maintain itself. So, they had actually threatened actual violence against Pahoran and the “freemen” should they win the vote to make them kings. And then they refused to take up arms to fight against the invading Lamanites. Though, this is not the same as taking up arms to join the invading, aggressing Lamanites. But did this merit Moroni coming in with an army with the intention of forcing them to fight or be put to death? Moroni was definitely justified in doing something about the king-men since they had already attempted to make themselves tyrants over everyone else. But perhaps another, better way to do so would have been to disarm them and either outcast them from society or place them in some kind of secure open air prison and guard them while they refused to fight in defense of the Nephites so as to not allow them to join the invading Lamanites in taking up arms against the Nephites, offering them their freedom if they agreed to fight with the Nephites or in the very least covenant not to fight alongside with the Lamanites. These king-men were not insignificant in number. They numbered over 4000, which would have been a significant boon to the already numerous aggressing Laminates coming to invade for the purpose of enslaving the Nephites. Doing something about them & their already attempted coup to make themselves kings was reasonable. But from the context given, we just don’t know enough to say decisively that Moroni was entirely justified in trying to forcefully conscript these king-men upon pain of death. I am very uncomfortable with such a move by Moroni and the resulting death that came Moroni sending in an army to conscript them to fight or die by their hand appears to me to make Moroni guilty of, if not murder, then at least unnecessary death. It’s true, the king-men did not have to raise their arms against Moroni and his army. But to their eyes, perhaps it looked like Moroni was coming to slaughter them? Indeed, Moroni was coming to give them a choice of fight for the Nephite government or be killed, but they may not have known that. Neither side seems to be justified or innocent in what actually transpired, though it’s not exactly a clear cut incident where moral action one way or the other is easy to see and come to. I can understand Moroni’s point of view and his anger and desire to do something about the very really possibility of the king-men joining the Laminates in fighting the Nephites. But, I can think of less coercive, slavish and deadly, and thus more justified ways of dealing with the king-men than what transpired. As we shall see in a future chapter, Moroni’s suspicions of the king-men joining the Laminates and attempting to violently overthrow the Nephite government and make themselves rulers over the Nephites did actually transpire, but as of yet the king-men had only voiced intention not to fight with the Nephites. The context makes it hard to decide 100% one way or the other as to whether Moroni was justified in his actions. Conscription is always bad and immoral, as is threatening to kill someone if they do not fight in some battle, even if the battle is a truly justified defensive one. Conscription is always slavery, and the threat to kill those who simply doesn’t want to fight is tantamount to a threat of murder. Giving people, even a group of evil people the choice of being an army slave or being put to death is not much of a choice. Moroni could have and should have chosen to deal with the king-men is a different, more voluntaristic and peaceful manner instead of threatening them with enslavement or death. But the king-men should have have attempted to make themselves tyrannical rulers of the Nephite peoples, nor should they refused to fight the incoming Lamanites in defense of themselves and the rights and freedom of the Nephite people. Moroni may have been a very good, righteous man of God and practitioner of Christ’s ways 99.99% of the time, but this particular moment might not one of his best examples of such and appears to be an example of where he broke from following the ways of Christ & voluntarism, choosing aggressive coercion in a moment of weakness out of not entirely unjustified anger & fear of what could the king-men could do if not dealt with in some way. He was justified in being angry with them, & potentially doing something to neutralize them as a threat to prevent them joining the Laminates in battle against them, as it seemed that was their desire (as indeed it ended up being later on in another chapter), but his solution he chose leaves much to be desired.
It would have been entirely just for Moroni to, in the very least, make it known to the Kingmen that any of them caught fighting or planning to fight alongside the Laminates against he Nephites would be given no quarter and no mercy, or instead slay the king-men once they had actually taken up their swords against the Nephites with the Laminates or disarmed them once they made concrete threats to actually do so. Or it would have been justified in allowing the king-men to go, leave their lands, and defect to the Laminates, unarmed if they wished, or to place them under guard of some sort to make sure they did not join the Lamanites in actual battle against the Nephites. There are multiple other options Moroni could have tried that would have appeared less tyrannical itself. I think what transpired shows the monsters that otherwise good people are turned into by erecting thrones of power. The “voice of the people” cannot give anyone the rightful authority to enslave people & force them to fight in a war or put them to death if they refuse, even if it’s a defensive war, unless those people had made it plainly clear that they intended to fight with the aggressive invaders. It’s hard to know & decide 100% either way because we are only given so much context. And the context given does not make Moroni look like a very good guy in this specific instance and shows his fallibility and weakness due to anger and fear. This is probably one of the most problematic parts of the Book of Mormon for me for this very reason. Was Moroni justified here or no? It’s a tough question to answer. Good arguments could be made in either direction, especially as our knowledge from the context is limited. Ultimately, I believe it should have been handled differently and Moroni comes off here as not exactly the good guy with morality on his side.
We do know from Alma chapter 61 that Moroni’s fears of the king-men joining the Laminates to overthrow the Nephite government and enslave the Nephites under their and the Laminates rule did actually come true. But Moroni did not necessarily know this at the time. He feared it & thus took action to try to prevent it, but he had no sure knowledge that it would happen at the time. Preemptive striking against a potential threat, committing actual aggressive violence against someone one fears to be a threat that could potentially do something in the future is not justified under the non-aggression principle and thus under anarchic principles. The mere possibility that someone could attack you is not justification enough to attach them first, thus becoming the aggressor. One could only be justified in committing violence against a potential threat if that potential threat actually gave solid evidence that them being a threat was real, like expressing concrete intention to harm the other person first. Say if person A has a gun or a knife and says “I’m gonna shoot/stab you in the head” & moves toward person B. Person B would be completely within his/her rights to neutralize the concrete, expressed threat of Person A, even by killing Person A if necessary in self defense. But if Person A merely has a weapon and refuses to join Person B in fighting off a coming future aggressing Person C, is Person B justified in threatening to kill Person A if he/she doesn’t join Person B in fighting off the coming future aggression of Person C? What if Person A expresses a desire to enslave Person B, tries to do so by getting others to join him in doing so, fails, and then Person C begins to aggress against Person B with the same intentions of enslaving Person B, and Person A refuses to help Person B? Is Person B justified in forcing Person A to help defend against aggressing Person C, or in the very least disarming Person A in case he might seek to join Person C in enslaving Person B? It’s a complicated situation that does not have an easy answer, because that is essentially what occurred in Alma 51. Ultimately, though, despite the complicated nature, trying to conscript, i.e. enslave another person to fight, even in a just defensive war is wrong, as is threatening to kill that person if they don’t promise to fight. What Moroni should have done, in the least, was warned the king-men that if they were caught aiding or fighting with the invading aggressive Laminates in any way, they would be found to be aggressors as well and thus subject to whatever defensive actions the Nephites would have to take to protect themselves, even up to the death of the aggressors once in the act of aggressing. And he could have placed guards around them to watch their every move. That would have been the more just and less retaliatory aggressive action to take in response to the king-men.
Leaving behind this complicated & uncomfortable quandary of Moroni’s ultimately tyrannical and mistaken actions in Alma 51, let us move on to Alma chapters 59, 60, and 61. The chapters in between 51 and 59, 60, & 61 deal primarily with the various battles and war stratagems of the newly begun war between the aggressing Laminates and their dissenting Nephite allies, like Amalakiah, and the defending Nephites. They are not particularly necessary to cover here in detail aside from reiterating that the primary goal of the aggressing Laminates was to conquer and enslave the defending Nephites under the rule of power hungry dissenting Nephites like Amalakiah and later, his brother Ammoron. Amaliakiah was killed by one of Moroni’s men, Tenacum, who snuck into the Laminate war camp after they had invaded and started the war and killed Amalakiah by putting a javelin through his heart so expertly that he died instantly & Teancum was able to slip back out of the camp and back to the Nephite camp. Of course, the hope was likely that if you cut the head off the snake, the rest of the body dies and it was probably hoped that the invading Lamanites, after losing their leader and main catalyst for their invasion would fall back and cease their aggressions. This unfortunately did not occur and Amaliakiah’s brother, Ammoron took his place instead and the aggressive invasion continued. Was Teancum’s slaying of Amalakiah murder or unjustified? No. Amalakiah was a repeated aggressor and mass murderer who was once again attempting to murder, rob, and enslave the Nephites under his tyrannical rule. Teancum was entirely justified as a defending Nephite in sneaking in and cutting off the head of the snake, as it were. There are no “rules of war” when you are the aggressor. It’s fair game for the defender to use whatever means at his disposal and necessary to stop the aggression against his/her/their rights. End of story.
The other thing that needs mentioning briefly comes in Alma 52, verse 25. Teancum and Moroni, the same Moroni from above who in his anger made the wrong choice to use unjust aggressions against the king-men, showed their more true side of desiring to spare life when the by stratagem took the city of Melek from the Laminates, which the Laminates had invaded, conquered and stolen from the Nephites. Teancum’s army drew out the main Laminate army from Melek while Moroni’s army retook possession of Melek and then proceeded to march to the aid of Teancum being pursued by the Laminates army that had left Melek in pursuit of Teancum. In retaking Melek, verse 25 & verses 26-30 say:
25 And thus they did, and slew all those who had been left to protect the city, yea, all those who would not yield up their weapons of war.
36 And Lehi pressed upon their rear with such fury with his strong men, that the Lamanites in the rear delivered up their weapons of war; and the remainder of them, being much confused, knew not whither to go or to strike.
37 Now Moroni seeing their confusion, he said unto them: If ye will bring forth your weapons of war and deliver them up, behold we will forbear shedding your blood.
38 And it came to pass that when the Lamanites had heard these words, their chief captains, all those who were not slain, came forth and threw down their weapons of war at the feet of Moroni, and also commanded their men that they should do the same.
39 But behold, there were many that would not; and those who would not deliver up their swords were taken and bound, and their weapons of war were taken from them, and they were compelled to march with their brethren forth into the land Bountiful.
40 And now the number of prisoners who were taken exceeded more than the number of those who had been slain, yea, more than those who had been slain on both sides.
Here yet again we see the true nature of Moroni and the Christlike, peaceful side of the Nephites when under the guidance of good, usually Christlike people. Moroni normally hated to have to take life, and 99% of the tried extremely hard to not have to sacrifice or take life as much as possible, only killing those who continued in their aggressive murderous and enslaving attempts. The one time he did not do this is when his anger got the better of him, as described above regarding the king-men. But throughout his efforts in battle against the Lamanites, he attempted again and again to spare the lives of those who would surrender their weapons of war, a war they had started, stop their aggressions against the Nephites, and leave in peace and return to their own lands. This is the Christlike way of anarchy, i.e. defensive violence, where violence is abhorred and avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary in defense of life and property at the hands of an aggressors who is consistently aggressing against you.
One final discussion of the war chapters in the Alma 50s is merited before moving on. In Alma 57, there is an incident where the Nephites kill the Laminates prisoners who rise up in rebellion against their Nephite captors. To a critic, this may seem like the Nephites just blatantly murdered a group of prisoners who were merely trying to escape being held captive against their will. However, it must be remembered that in Anarchy/Voluntarism, while killing in self-defense is ultimately justified, that is not what is occurring in Alma 57. Again, the context is the key to discovering that the Nephite sailors killing the uprising Laminate prisoners was completely within the justice of anarchy. It must be remembered that these Laminates prisoners had been taken prisoner after a battle, a battle which they began, which was part of a grander war they also had began, attacking the Nephites and stealing their cities and taking Nephite possessions and people prisoner in the process, killing many of them. The Laminates were the aggressors, having violated all sorts of property rights of the Nephites in their war of aggression in order to ultimately enslave the Nephites under their tyrannical rule. Thus, the Nephites taken them prisoner and disarming these Laminates after they had lost the battle, and keeping them guarded, marching them back to Zarahemla to be guarded there to face some kind of justice for their aggressions was entirely just and within the rights of the Nephites. Now, as the Nephitese were marching these Laminates toward Zarahemla, to be guarded more efficiently there, Nephites spies came upon the guard and prisoner procession & told the Nephite guards that the Laminates were attacking a certain Nephite city called Cumeni. The Laminates prisoners, upon hearing this news, Cumeni not being far away, they rebelled and sought to overtake their Nephite guards, attacking them in the process so as to escape and flee, possibly to Cumeni to assist their Laminates comrades in arms in taking the Nephite city of Cumeni, though the story does not explicitly say this. Some may have simply fought to flee, period and go home. This is possible. But, again, they were already taken prisoner for their previous aggressions of murder plunder and attempted enslavement against and of the Nephites, and now they were attempting to escape by overtaking the Nephite guards over them, attacking them. That the Nephite guards proceeded to defend themselves by killing the prisoners that rose up in this fashion for those purposes is self defense, and is, under the justice of anarchy and natural rights, a justified killing. This is not the case of a group of innocent Laminates being taken captive as slaves by the Nephite armies and then rebelling and attacking their captors to obtain their freedom. These Laminates were guilty of horrible aggressions against the Nephites. The Nephites were justified in exacting justice from them in order to obtain restitution for their loses at the hand of the aggressions of these very Laminate prisoners. These Laminates rising up to overtake their Nephite guards was but another attempt of aggressing against their Nephite guards in order to escape the consequences of their earlier actions. It would be like a group of townsfolk from Town A banding together to defend themselves against the attack of another a neighboring group of townsfolk from Town B coming to murder, plunder, and enslave Town A, winning the battle, disarming Town B people, placing them under guard to prevent them from further aggressing and to exact justice/restitution from them, and said prisoners rising up to further aggress against Town A people & escape the consequences of their earlier aggressions. Town A guards would be entirely justified in defending themselves, even to killing Town B prisoners in their attempt to overtake their guards and escape. Under anarchy & its principles, violent force is justified in 2 situations: 1.) in self-defense or defense of others, and 2.) in order to exact restitution/justice, whatever form that may take. Every other use violent coercion is aggression. Thus, the Nephites slaying the Laminates prisoners who rose up and tried to escape was entirely justified.
Now, moving on to the more interesting story involving the Nephite-Lamanite war, Moroni, the Nephite government, and the King-men, which begins in Alma chapter 59. As we discussed already, Moroni was a fallible human being who was guilty of aggression and attempted slavery in his anger at the King-men refusing to fight against the invading Lamanites. He chose poorly and must be held accountable for that aggression and the unnecessary deaths that resulted. But, it cannot be forgotten that despite this mistake, he was, on the whole pro-liberty, even if he, like all his contemporary Nephites, felt that individual liberty was best secured under a nominally “free government” of democratically selected judges, even if it wasn’t actually a “free government.” On the whole, he was a mostly decent, though fallible man who had nothing but the utmost hatred for tyranny and was willing to fight it wherever it came from, whether from attack from without or from within. Alma 59-60 prove this about him, for this is where Moroni threatens to march upon the Nephrite government and overthrow it for its apparent abandoning of the Nephite armies by failing to send them new troops and provisions in order for Moroni to stop the onslaught of Laminate aggressions on the boarder of the Nephite territories. Moroni’s armies were getting low in food and supplies, as well as numbers, and his hope of successfully defending against the Laminate aggressive onslaughts was looking more and more dim and slim without said supplies and new troops, and the Nephite government had continuously failed to send them further aid. Moroni’s armies were becoming more and more outnumbered as the Laminates grew in number and began aggressively conquering more Nephite cities, murdering the inhabitant and stealing their property. Moroni thus sent a letter to the chief judge of the Nephite government, Pahoran, the one who nearly had been toppled by the King-men a few chapters earlier. In said letter Moroni expresses great wrath at the Nephite government’s seeming treachery in refusing to aid Moroni’s defense of Nephites being attacked by the aggressing Laminates and he vows to take his army and march on the Nephite government itself to remove the traitors and tyrants from the thrones of power using his army.
His famous words are as follows:
17 But behold, now the Lamanites are coming upon us, taking possession of our lands, and they are murdering our people with the sword, yea, our women and our children, and also carrying them away captive, causing them that they should suffer all manner of afflictions, and this because of the great wickedness of those who are seeking for power and authority, yea, even those king-men.
18 But why should I say much concerning this matter? For we know not but what ye yourselves are seeking for authority. We know not but what ye are also traitors to your country.
19 Or is it that ye have neglected us because ye are in the heart of our country and ye are surrounded by security, that ye do not cause food to be sent unto us, and also men to strengthen our armies?
20 Have ye forgotten the commandments of the Lord your God? Yea, have ye forgotten the captivity of our fathers? Have ye forgotten the many times we have been delivered out of the hands of our enemies?
21 Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?
22 Yea, will ye sit in idleness while ye are surrounded with thousands of those, yea, and tens of thousands, who do also sit in idleness, while there are thousands round about in the borders of the land who are falling by the sword, yea, wounded and bleeding?
23 Do ye suppose that God will look upon you as guiltless while ye sit still and behold these things? Behold I say unto you, Nay. Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also.
24 And now, except ye do repent of that which ye have done, and begin to be up and doing, and send forth food and men unto us, and also unto Helaman, that he may support those parts of our country which he has regained, and that we may also recover the remainder of our possessions in these parts, behold it will be expedient that we contend no more with the Lamanites until we have first cleansed our inward vessel, yea, even the great head of our government.
25 And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true spirit of freedom, and strive to strengthen and fortify our armies, and grant unto them food for their support, behold I will leave a part of my freemen to maintain this part of our land, and I will leave the strength and the blessings of God upon them, that none other power can operate against them—
26 And this because of their exceeding faith, and their patience in their tribulations—
27 And I will come unto you, and if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold I will stir up insurrections among you, even until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct.
28 Yea, behold I do not fear your power nor your authority, but it is my God whom I fear; and it is according to his commandments that I do take my sword to defend the cause of my country, and it is because of your iniquity that we have suffered so much loss.
29 Behold it is time, yea, the time is now at hand, that except ye do bestir yourselves in the defence of your country and your little ones, the sword of justice doth hang over you; yea, and it shall fall upon you and visit you even to your utter destruction.
30 Behold, I wait for assistance from you; and, except ye do administer unto our relief, behold, I come unto you, even in the land of Zarahemla, and smite you with the sword, insomuch that ye can have no more power to impede the progress of this people in the cause of our freedom.
31 For behold, the Lord will not suffer that ye shall live and wax strong in your iniquities to destroy his righteous people.
32 Behold, can you suppose that the Lord will spare you and come out in judgment against the Lamanites, when it is the tradition of their fathers that has caused their hatred, yea, and it has been redoubled by those who have dissented from us, while your iniquity is for the cause of your love of glory and the vain things of the world?
33 Ye know that ye do transgress the laws of God, and ye do know that ye do trample them under your feet. Behold, the Lord saith unto me: If those whom ye have appointed your governors do not repent of their sins and iniquities, ye shall go up to battle against them.
34 And now behold, I, Moroni, am constrained, according to the covenant which I have made to keep the commandments of my God; therefore I would that ye should adhere to the word of God, and send speedily unto me of your provisions and of your men, and also to Helaman.
35 And behold, if ye will not do this I come unto you speedily; for behold, God will not suffer that we should perish with hunger; therefore he will give unto us of your food, even if it must be by the sword. Now see that ye fulfil the word of God.
36 Behold, I am Moroni, your chief captain. I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country. And thus I close mine epistle.
Moroni threatens to go back to Zarahemla, find any who value protecting individual liberty and rights, and with them foment rebellion against the seemingly uncaring, traitorous and now tyrannical Nephite government to pull those in the seats of power down from them in their neglect of helping the Nephites in the border regions being slaughtered by aggressing Laminates while they sit in plenty on their thrones of power. Pretty radical stuff. Now, Moroni was ultimately a statist, even if one who believed in standing up for individual freedom, believing in the necessity of human government like judges and such, so he likely would have simply removed Pahoran by force had Pahoran turned his back on the Nephite armies and refused to aid them in the aims of securing more power for himself and replaced him with someone who would provision the armies in their defensive fight against e aggressing Nephites. It would have been coup, or a revolution of sorts, perhaps an understandable one, from an emotional perspective, but it wouldn’t have ended the problem for long, i.e. erecting thrones of power in the first place that could be easily seized by the wicked to rule over the others in a reign of terror. This is the recurring problem for all the civilizations presented in the Book of Mormon, and indeed the Bible: placing their fellow human beings above God by erecting idolatrous thrones of aggression upon which to place fallible men and occasionally women on to rule over the rest of society as judge instead of the more knowledgeable and thus more intelligent and infinitely more just and merciful God. And indeed, this is the primary message of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, particularly the latter, a warning against to the followers of Christ and his voluntarist ways against the disastrous consequences of continuing to erect these idolatrous, blasphemous thrones of power and aggression and placing fallible human beings in power over others to murder, rob, torture, and enslave them. If it’s a matter of simply just trying to get the “right” person on said throne, then it’s not a system you want to be messing around with when it’s just as more likely that the wrong person will obtain and occupy said throne. The Bible and the Book of Mormon showed 5 civilizations and their eventual tyrannical destruction, and indeed near genocide in the case of some, that resulted as a result of erecting these thrones of aggressive power. It is a warning against the secret combinations that arise from and for the sole purpose of obtaining these thrones and thus power over others with which to do all manner of evil and attempt to get away with it and maintain themselves in that evil and aggression, by means of aggression. Moroni & his fellow more righteous Nephites’ hearts may have been in the right place in attempting to preserve their individual rights and liberty A.) by defending themselves against Laminate aggressions to strip them of these by making them their slaves, and B.) attempting to create a human government that tried to avoid the pitfalls of monarchy and aristocracy. Their hearts were in the right place. Unfortunately, like their Israelite ancestors, they missed the mark. And of course, as God, a voluntarist through and through lets man have their agency and freedom to choose and face the consequences of those choices, he did not interfere with their choice to do so in the form of B.), erecting thrones of aggressive power upon which to place their fellow human beings in unnatural positions of power & authority over the rest, thrones that would be of great temptation to those who wished to rule over others and get wealth and more power at the expense of all others. But, ultimately, they made the wrong choice in B.). And Moroni, despite his heart being in the right place in wanting to protect the rights of the individual, fell into the same trap as had the Jaredites, the Israelites, the Mulekites, the Lamanites, and the Nephites, as they would eventually find out the hard way. Moroni may have been a generally righteous man in striving to follow the ways of Christ as much and as best as he could, but he was still imperfect and made mistakes. This is not to condemn him. Rather, it’s merely to point out that he was not God nor Christ and thus got things wrong as we all do. It’s to pull him down from the deity he is sometimes made out to be and placed among the ranks of the rest of us mere fallible human beings. He was great at defending himself and others from the aggressions of the Laminates and homegrown tyrannical Nephites, inasmuch as he did so voluntarily and did not attempt to conscript, AKA enslave others to do the same, a mistake he did make at least once with the King-men.
Now, how does Moroni’s threat to topple the Nephite government in their seeming neglect of the Nephite armies and seeming covetousness of power back in Zarahemla apply to anarchy/voluntarism? Under anarchy/voluntarism, as discussed earlier regarding Moroni first actions concerning the King-men, it is aggression & literal slavery to attempt to force another individual to fight in defense of themselves and/or others against an invading force. That individual may voluntarily choose to defend themselves and others, but they cannot justly be violently coerced into doing so without violating their right to the property they have in their bodies and their lives, and thus their liberty. Moroni cannot justly march into Zarahemla, the Nephite capitol city and realm of its government, and compel men to come to their aid to fight. He also cannot justly compel them to give of their substance as supplies to be sent to the Nephite armies. It is their property, to do with as they please, just as their bodies are their property to do with as they please. Moroni could justly go back to Zarahemla with his army compatriots who volunteered to go with him and rally and persuade the people of Zaramhelma to voluntarily come to the aid of the Nephite cities and armies being attacked by the Laminates in the borders and/or voluntarily send them supplies. This would be perfectly in harmony with the principles of voluntarism as taught by Christ. Moroni could also justly return to Zarahemla to rally the people to voluntarily fight against & overthrow the seemingly tyrannically turned Nephite regime, to be replaced by nothing, i.e. anarchy, so as to free the people from tyranny in Zarahemla. But that is not likely what Moroni meant when he said he would take his armies, march on Zarahemla, and overthrow the seemingly tyrannically turned Neophyte government. More likely, Moroni planned to removed the tyrants who had taken over the throne and replace them with someone to his liking, someone who was more righteous like he in following the ways of Christ, but which would still leave the problem of a throne of aggression still existing for a fellow, fallible human being to occupy and rule over others. Moroni was right to say that he sought not for power, but sought to pull it down. But, unfortunately, the way he saw the world and how the world should work, through a statist lens and saw the need for a state as a “necessary evil,” illogical as that is, he didn’t seek to pull down power quite enough. He only sought to pull it down only so far as to prevent outright, outrageous, obviously abusive tyranny, but he was quite alright with letting enough power stand so as to still have a functioning, limited government. Moroni could be called today, in libertarian parlance, a “minarchist.” He wanted a small, limited government that would act as a guard and protector of the liberty of the individual. But the problem with monarchists is that they fail to realize that such governments, even those small, limited ones subject to the voice of the people, still must rely upon aggression to exist through theft & slavery, which they euphemistically call “taxes”, “courts,” “police,” “military,” and “laws.” Now, of course, a minarchist, limited government is vastly preferable to a tyrannical leviathan one, but even minarchist governments rely upon aggression to exist, and thus are illegitimate as they violate the Non-Aggression Principle, (the NAP) by their very nature and existence. They may violate the NAP less so than other more tyrannical leviathan governments, but violate it they still do. Thus, the issue with Moroni is that he did not seek to pull down power far enough. Was he more righteous in following the voluntarist ways of Christ than the Laminates and then the dissenting Nephite King-men? Most definitely, and for that he was more preferable to the latter two. But, ultimately, he still clung the myth of human authority and that it could be used to keep tyranny at bay when in ironic reality, that very means used to try to keep tyranny at bay, government, i.e. thrones of aggressive power, ended up always ushering in more and more tyrannical regimes over time as the evil in society sought those thrones of power, doing and saying anything to obtain them so as to murder, plunder, and enslave and get away with it.
Moroni is a complicated character who is difficult to peel apart. He truly believes in the freedom of the individual & does appear to have a deep hatred for those who love power and authority over others, particularly when it hinders his ability to fulfill his desire to protect his fellow Nephites against Laminates aggressions. But, at the same time, in his anger against those he views as less than or unsupportive of the cause of protecting freedom from one aggressive enemy, he willing to use his own power as commander & leader of the Nephite armies to use aggression against them & either coerce them to support “the cause” or be killed for not doing so. He is, in many ways similar to Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell from the English Revolution of the 1640s, hating the absolute power of King Charles, but fully willing to use their power over the Parliamentary army to crush others they see as threatening their “cause” of “freedom,” or rather, what they view as “freedom.” It’s probably likely that Moroni himself, unlike Fairfax and Cromwell, did not seek to be in power himself, and to his credit, he very likely did hate power and authority and those that sought to abuse it at the expense of others. But, he had power himself, being commander of the Nephite armies, and as such he did not hesitate to use that power, even aggressively, against those he felt was not doing enough for his “cause of freedom.” It is one thing for Moroni to threaten to return to Zarahemla with his army to gather the people of that land to rise up against government leaders actively supporting the invading, aggressing Lamanites, giving them supplies and aid instead of the Nephites. But to threaten to bring the sword upon people who simply just don’t wish to be a part of the Nephite defense? That’s another matter altogether. What right does Moroni have to violently compel them to give of their own lives and property if they don’t wish to do so? This is not to say that such people are cowards in doing so, for they would be. But Moroni has no right to their property if they are not using their property to actively participate in riding the Laminates aggressors, even if it means the Nephite defending armies suffer from lack of supplies and reinforcements. If they were actively using themselves and their property to aid the aggressing Lamanites, thus becoming aggressors themselves, then Moroni would have the right to defend himself and his fellow Nephites from even them. Some may look at the situation and say, “but the Nephite government and those in Zarahemla refusing to send to fresh supplies and reinforcements to the Nephite armies is aiding the Laminate aggressors because withholding supplies & reinforcements weakens the Nephite armies and strengthens the aggressing Lamanites over them.” That may be so. It may indeed be the case that Zarahemla Nephites and its “government” refusing to send such supplies & reinforcements does strengthen the Laminates by weakening the Nephites. But this is not the same as the Zarahemla Nephites actively using their own bodies and property to send supplies and reinforcements instead to the Laminates in order to strengthen them. It simply means they choose, cowardly and selfishly, to exercise their sole right to control over themselves and their property in a way that results in the Nephite armies having to fend for themselves with what they have or can find in nature or elsewhere by voluntary means. Moroni has no rightful claim to their property in their persons or their possessions. And as governments cannot rightfully own anything as they are illegitimate themselves, being created and sustained by aggression in the form of theft & slavery, i.e. taxes and other coercive dictates, Moroni cannot rightful demand the Nephite government hand over what they stole from the people by way of said “taxes,” for what the government stole from the Nephite people belongs to the Nephite individuals who had such property stolen by the Nephite government. If the Nephite people, or the individuals making up that society in Zarahemla choose to not impart of themselves or their substance to support Moroni and his armies willingly, then they face the consequence of loosing what they have to the invading aggressing Laminates who seek to enslave them totally under their rule and the rule of the local Nephite King-men, perhaps under some puppet state of some sort controlled ultimately by Ammoron, Amalakiah’s brother. It is in their best interest to protect the freedom & property they have to voluntarily support the Nephite armies fighting for their protection against the invading Laminates. But Moroni nor anyone else has a legit claim over their lives, their bodies, and their properties.
So, once again, Moroni has shown his complicated nature as a fallible human being, his deep hatred for those who abuse power and authority over others to be tyrants and his desire to pull such people down from their thrones, all the while supporting the erection of such thrones of aggressive power to a certain degree, as long as it allows him to worship his God as he pleases, and using his own power over the armies aggressively to take from others what does not belong to him in his extremely zealous desire to defend his version of “freedom,” cloaking his own abuse of the power he holds in the language of “liberty” and “God’s commandments.” I personally highly doubt God told Moroni to go and kill the Zarahemla Nephites in government because they withheld supplies and troop reinforcements from Moroni’s armies. If God told Moroni to go and kill the Nephite governors, it seems more likely it was because they were exercising authority over others, using aggression to do so, stealing from the Nephite people for their own profit and benefit as aggression against others is against the ways of God. Perhaps Moroni, in his anger, misunderstood what God wanted him do to. Perhaps it could be argued that Moroni was justified in threatening to come and confiscate all the personal property of the Nephite governors that was not stolen from the Nephite people by way of taxes and other dictates for the use of the Nephite armies by way of their being thieves in the first place and stealing from the people. But that’s not what the story seems to say from the context. From the context, Moroni is upset the government is witholding supplies and support for the Nephrite armies, and thus he intends to gather supporters in Zarahemla to topple those governors and take ALL that they have, including that which was stolen from others, to deliver to the Nephite armies and kill any who stands in his way. Again, like the earlier issue regarding the King-men, it’s a very complicated, sticky situation that must be delved into in great detail, looking at the whole context we are given in order to discover who was in the moral right and who was in the moral wrong in their actions or threatened actions. Moroni is a complicated figure who does much good but is also imperfect, has a temper issue and lets it get the better of him at times, leading him on certain occasions to stray from the principles of Christ’s voluntarist way. Part of this tendency of Moroni to stray from the principles of Christ’s voluntarist way is also because, like the rest of the Nephites, Moroni was not raised in a cultural vacuum nor a political one, and while he was for the most part a very good, moral person, he was after all raised in a culture and environment of statism despite having the principles of voluntarism taught to him. And he was also in a position of military and thus political power, being commander of the Nephite armies, having people under him obey his every word and thus he being used to having people ask how high when he says to jump. It’s easy to see such a position corrupting to an extent even as righteous of people as Moroni. And here is where the Lord of the Rings analogy can be made quite nicely, where the Ring of Power represents exactly that, power, authority, and control over others. Frodo, much like Moroni, begins the story as an innocent, just, and mostly merciful Hobbit who has the Ring of Power forced upon him against his will. He does not begin entirely from a clean slate though. He is raised in a society of kings and rulers and subjects, with unnatural hierarchies abounding, and there are times were this rather cruel society he grows up in makes its influence known, particularly when he says it’s a pity his uncle Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum when he had the chance. Gandalf, the wizened old wizard responds to Frodo that it was pity that had stayed Bilbo’s hand from killing him when had the chance, telling Frodo that knowing when to take and spare a life was an important lesson to learn, one which Frodo, recognizes his lack of wisdom and experience compared to Gandalf, who had been around a lot longer than Frodo and took it to heart, ultimately sparing Gollum’s life like his uncle Bilbo when he had his own chance to do as he wished with him. Naive and unchallenged yet mostly innocent, gentle, kind, just, and morally driven Frodo was, even he couldn’t resist the lure of the Ring of Power, a metaphor for political positions of power, and was in the end corrupted and turned by it to something he was not originally by his nature. It’s not at all implausible to apply this analogy to Moroni. He was, on the whole as innocent, just, merciful, though somewhat naive as Frodo, being raised in the same type of statist society. He mostly knew, better than Frodo, when to take and spare life, and he had a sincere desire to do what is morally right. And like Frodo, he did not seek for power, only becoming a warrior and leader of the Nephite armies out of necessity, as the Laminates or dissenting Nephites kept attacking and aggressing against the regular body of Nephites. But also like Frodo, even he, righteous as he was, was not immune to the influence on him of the statist society he was raised in nor the position of power he was unwittingly thrust into, and like Frodo, it can plausibly be surmised that Moroni let that position of power get into his head at times when his anger was broiling out of his zealous desire for freedom, even to the point of destroying the freedom of others unjustly in order to preserve his own freedom. Such is the case with his attempting to conscript the King-men to fight for their “country” and killing them when they fought back against his attempts to do so, and such was the was when he threatened to overthrow the Nephite government in order to force them to send supplies & reinforcements.
The point of this discussion about Moroni is not to rag on the man. It’s, as I’ve explained, A.) to show that he was a fallible human being, as we all are, subject to making mistakes fueled by emotion, in his case anger, B.) that he was not raised in a cultural vacuum, having grown up in a statist society that erected thrones of power to places fellow human beings on so they could be in power over other human beings, instead of making God the judge, which influenced his actions and interpretation of the world,. & C.) that his own position of power could easily have corrupted him, like the Ring did Frodo at times,, leading him to make bad choices that ultimately were contrary to his professed beliefs about freedom, rights, and liberty. And all of this stems from the erecting of thrones of power for which some humans are placed upon to be in power over others and claim to be justified in stealing from them and using them as slaves & puppets. Sometimes the causes are noble, but no matter how noble the cause, if the means are unjust and contrary to the voluntarist ways of Christ, it won’t matter how noble the cause is, for evil/immoral means lead to evil/immoral outcomes.
Now, returning to the story of Moroni and Pahoran. In reality, what actually occurred, in Alma 61, was that before Moroni could march on Zarahemla, he finally received a reply from Pahoran and the Nephite government, telling him what had occurred in Zarahemla while Moroni was out battling the Laminates in the borderlands. In this epistle, or letter, Pahoran tells Moroni he and the people of Zarahemla are faithful to the cause of the Nephite defense but have been unable to send the aid & reinforcements the Nephite armies need because the King-men have risen up again & taken control of Zarahemla, pushing Pahoran out of the governing seat into another city. These King-men, taking control over Zarahemla, appointed a king over them and wrote to Ammoron, the dissenting Nephite king over the Laminates to form an alliance with them, so that they may use Zarahemla as a launching bas to conquer the rest of the Nephite lands. Thus, the new King-men regime began withholding the supplies and soldiery of Zarahemla from reaching Moroni’s armies. The deal struck with the Laminates was that the newly anointed Nephite king, of the King-men, would maintain his throne once the Laminates “conquered” Zarahemla, ruling under the Laminate king. Thus, there was a literal insurrection by these King-men in which Pahoran & his judges form of government, which they called the “free government,” was driven out into exile and replaced with a monarchy. Or in other words, a less tyrannical regime was replaced with a more tyrannical one by power mongers seeking more absolute power over others by trying to obtain the throne of power by force, which they accomplished by “flattering” the people of Zarahemla to support them. This was probably not at all unlike our modern day political elections, where different power mongering candidates who seek to rule over others at their expense, living fat off of them by aggressive thieving of their property, give speeches and write pamphlets and such promising the world for a vote or support. And of course, such campaigns are never what they seem, or rather, never turn out the way they say they will, where the power mongers, once in power, do whatever they please and seek more and more power and squeeze more and more blood for the turnip that is the people. It was likely no different in the game of thrones power struggle between Pahoran and these King-men. They likely promised the world to the people of Zarahemla, perhaps condemning Pahoran for starting a war with the Lamanites, or perhaps preaching the Laminates as deliverers from the tyranny of Pahoran, etc. We don’t really know how they flattered the people of Zarahemla to support them, but they did, and apparently the people of Zarahemla were no smarter, no more intelligent than the modern occupiers of North America, the American people, who keep playing the same game of the pendulum swinging “elect your new slave master.” But flattered they were, and Pahoran was forced to flee. Now, keep in mind, while Pahoran’s government may have been one thousand times better than the regime of the King-men, it was still a regime based upon aggression, no matter how much lip service it gave toward protecting the freedom and rights of the people. Looking at verses 6 and 9, we see that what Pahoran and his so-called “freemen” were fighting for was still power, despite claiming not to seek power, and it was all clothed in the “freedom” and “rights” of the people. It was “for their country” and “for their freedom,” and Pahoran may not have been seeking for MORE power than he already had, but he nonetheless still sought to maintain what power he had. And let’s be clear, he may have been legitimately honest and truthful in believing his power as chief judge helped protect the freedom and rights off the Nephites. He may have truly believed in his authority, that it was necessary to protect Nephite freedom and rights. He may have truly not been a power monger like the King-men were. But make no mistake; the judges system was still a throne of aggressive power that relied upon aggression, even if used minimally and sparingly, to exist. It still relied upon some form of taxation, or aggressive taking of property, AKA, theft, in order to pay those in the judgement seats and those in the armies and what police force they may have had. Moroni himself was chief over the Nephite army. It is doubtful that this was a volunteer militia and Moroni was a volunteer general. It’s possible, but it’s also possible and indeed more likely that Moroni’s position as chief over the Nephite armies was a government position paid for by way of taxation. He was apparently under the authority of Pahoran, while being in authority over the whole of the Nephite armies. Engaged in a righteous cause of self defense and defense of others Pahoran and Moroni may have been, but volunteer officers they were not, and power they had over others and sought to maintain it. Were they lying in clothing that maintenance of their power in the robes of liberty, freedom, and rights? Perhaps not; in fact, it’s doubtful they were lying. I believe they were telling the truth. They really did care about preserving the freedom and rights of the people of Nephi. But, like Americans today and humanity of all ages, they honestly yet erroneously believed the protection of freedom, liberty, and individual rights could only be achieved by erecting thrones of power, upon which certain people would be placed to rule over others, having power over their lives and property, to seize it & control them when they deemed it necessary, like when Moroni felt justified in forcing the King-men to fight for the Nephites upon pain of death or threatened to go & seize the war supplies taken from the Nephite people in order to force it to be sent to his armies. Pahoran says, in verse 9 of Alma 61,
I, Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people. My soul standeth fast in that liberty in the which God hath made us free.
He still sought for power, power over others. His goals may have been noble, but his means were built upon aggression and thus whatever noble goals he had were destroyed by the aggressive and thus ignoble and immoral means he sought to use to protect the very thing he was in actuality destroying, the freedom and rights of the people, even if he was destroying them less than the King-men. That he and Moroni truly believed maintaining their power over others to the degree they were given was necessary to preserve the very freedom their power over others actually destroyed is not surprising. They grew up in that system of thrones of power having been erecting, they fought for possession of those thrones of power, they had the power, they wanted to keep it, and it’s not surprising they feel for their own attempts to justify maintaining that power over the Nephite people. They were, like Frodo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings, raised in a system of inequality and power, knowing nothing else, and once having tasted that power, they were, to a degree, corrupted by it. Were they as bad as the King-men? Heavens no. But they weren’t entirely innocent, either, even if they didn’t necessarily know any better having been raised in that society in which some kind of throne of power was always present. They were, as were the Israelites back in the old world, blinded and misguided by the sins of the fathers, who had sought to place a fallible human being in power over others instead of maintaining the absolute freedom of the individual over their own lives and property by having God & his volunteer prophets as their judge, passing down to their descendants that rotten tradition of of rebellion against God known as human government.
Seeking to retain their freedom by the sword by fighting the insurrectionary King-men and the invading Laminates, as explained in Alma 61, was good. It was the moral thing to do. But seeking to defeat them so as to maintain their own positions of power was not good, and not moral. But, as God has only ever had imperfect and often times stubborn children to work with who insisted on doing things and learning lessons the hard way, always allowing his human children their agency, he had to work with what he had. God did not condone the Nephite government. But if that is what they insisted on having, he would still protect them from worse harm by the invading Laminates and insurrectionary freemen. It would have been much better had Pahoran and Moroni and the Nephite people fought off the invading Laminates and aggressing King-men so as to pull down power completely. But, sadly, they didn’t, and they paid for that mistake over the course of the next several years up til the very coming of Christ himself. Human action can only be moral & just(tified) when it is voluntary and consensual. Otherwise it is done by aggression, which is always immoral. This is the libertarian/anarchist/voluntarist core doctrine known as the Non-Aggression Principle. It was also the doctrine of the Nephites taught to them by God through his prophets, wherein they were never to be the aggressor or give the offense, but solely to use violence in self defense. Fortunately, they almost always stuck to that doctrine when it came to war. But unfortunately, the Nephites didn’t quite understand that that doctrine applied to more than just war, and they sadly abandoned that doctrine when it came to their own internal maintenance of society, relying upon inherently aggressive human government. And this is a core lesson of the Book of Mormon meant for our time of the Gentiles in the latter days, a lesson the vast majority of the Gentiles, even the very elect, i.e. those in the LDS Church, are unfortunately not heeding and are thus sadly repeating the very mistakes that record of the Israelite, Jaredite, Nephite, Mulekite, and Lamanite societies are trying to teach us.
In Alma 62, Moroni takes a portion of his army and sets off to aid Pahoran in retaking Zarahemla from the King-men. In doing so, Moroni and Pahoran make the same mistakes Moroni made previously concerning the treatment of the King-men. Once they over powered the King-men and put down their insurrection, they gave them the same ultimatum of fighting for their country or be put to death. The verses state:
9 And the men of Pachus received their trial, according to the law, and also those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison; and they were executed according to the law; yea, those men of Pachus and those king-men, whosoever would not take up arms in the defence of their country, but would fight against it, were put to death.
10 And thus it became expedient that this law should be strictly observed for the safety of their country; yea, and whosoever was found denying their freedom was speedily executed according to the law.
Now, taking, disarming, and arresting the King-men was perfectly justified. They had sought to enslave the Nephite people under a monarchy, and did so by way of aggressive violence, seeking to overthrow the rights of the Neophyte people. They deserved justice in some form. And those killed in the act of their aggression, fighting the forces of Moroni and Pahoran, those killings were completely justified, for Moroni and Pahoran and their forces were defending themselves against the aggressing King-men. However, putting to death all those who would not fight for their country was the same mistake Moroni made early, wherein he became the aggressor, seeking to essentially enslave the King-men to fight in their war, even if it was a just war. Conscription is always slavery. If people are going to put their lives on the line and possibly die in the defense of their own rights and the rights of others, that choice must be a voluntary one and must not be coerced. That the King-men must face some kind of justice was undoubtful. But forcing them to fight in defense against he invading Laminates was not a justified action, nor was killing them if they refused. Killing them if they insisted upon aiding the Laminates is one thing, but killing them because they refused to take up arms against the Laminates in support of the Nephites was tantamount to murder, or some other kind of unjust killing. It would have been much better had Moroni and Pahoran merely kept the King-men imprisoned for the duration of the war, or banished them from the city, taking their properties as restitution to be given to those they had harmed in their attempts to seize power and aid the Laminates in their aggressions. Or perhaps using the King-men as laborers to build top the defensive walls of the city would also have been justified as restitution, giving them the choice of rotting in a cell, being thrust into the wilderness, or laboring to build up the defenses of the city. Something along those lines would have been much more justified and preferable actions taken by Moroni and Pahoran over what they actually did, killing all those who would not take up arms in defense of the Nephite lands and people. Now the key difference here that might absolve Moroni of something tantamount to murder, in the text, is the it reads that all those king-men who would not take up arms in the defense of their country, *but would fight against it*, were put to death. This indeed might be the saving grace for Moroni and Pahoran, in both instances where Moroni sought to compel the king-men to fight for the Nephites. If they not only refused to fight for the Nephites, but also openly stated that they would fight for the Laminates instead, as they had already been found guilty of doing having caused an insurrection, erected a king, and made an alliance with the Laminates, then Moroni and Pahoran would most definitely be justified in doing something with the king-men, but the question still remains: what? What is proper to do with them as a result of their aggressions and already committed crimes & their stubborn intention to continue to commit them again if they could? Is putting them to death the best solution? It’s certainly A solution, but I don’t think it the THE best nor more just solution. It’s one thing to kill someone trying to kill or enslave you in the moment. But it’s quite another thing to kill them once they have been disarmed and rendered currently harmless and under guard as prisoners. It’s one thing to kill someone trying to enslave you in the moment. But after they have been disarmed and their enslavement attempts rendered no longer a threat, is death a punishment worthy of their crime? Most assuredly some form of justice could and should be taken against those who try to enslave others once they have been rendered no longer a threat. But death? I still maintain that the best and most just solution in the case of these king-men, in both cases, was to either A.) keep them imprisoned until the threat of the invading Laminates was eradicated or B.) outlaw and exile them from Nephite “territory” and drive them or allow them to go to the Laminates and lose the war and very possibly their lives with them fighting for their unjust cause of slavery. Killing them was, in my opinion, an unnecessary, unwise, and morally wrong choice to take in response to their crimes. There were other, much better and more just ways of doling out justice to these king-men for what they had done. And for that, Moroni and Pahoran will have to answer for the choices they made. Again, this is in no way a defense of the king-men and what they did. It is not an attempt to justify or mitigate in any way what they did. I am merely having a discussion with the reader as to what was the best and most just way to deal with their treachery and dole out justice to them. Moroni was completely justified in holding the king-men accountable both times for their attempted and actual crimes/aggressions against their fellow Nephites in attempt to enslave them to a monarch and the Lamanites. But it’s how he he chose to hold them accountable is what is the issue and is what is under scrutiny and discussion.
The main issue with otherwise good, moral people like Pahoran and Moroni, or perhaps their modern day equivalents of minarchists like Congressman Thomas Massie or former Congressman Justin Amash, or even many Libertarian Party political candidates is that they ultimately still believe the myth and the lie of the society they grew up in, despite having the teachings from Christ saying otherwise, that thrones of aggressive power occupied by fallible human beings are necessary in order to preserve the rights of the individual. Of course, as we know and have discussed at length already, they cannot be the case, for whenever any form of government is given the power to aggress, it not only does so to preserve itself, but it does so to grow, exactly like a parasite feeds off of and grows off a host. Smart governors, like some parasites, will know to limit the amount of their feeding so as not to alert their host to their presence, make their presence intolerable, or even weaken or kill the host, for then the parasite much find a new host, which can be tricky. Fortunately for the parasitic power mongers that are governors, there are a plethora of human hosts for them to brainwash and/or threaten into submission and feed off of them via aggression, using euphemisms such as “taxation,” “public duty,” “law & order,” “justice,” etc., all wrapped in the sacred robes of “liberty” and “rights,” blaspheming in the process. I am not saying Moroni and Pahoran, et al were power mongers like the king-men or the dissenting Nephites like Amalakiah & or his brother Ammoron, or the Lamanite kings. They are rather far from being power mongers. However, being raised in a society that taught them the lie that thrones of aggressive power were necessary to preserve liberty, they sadly continued to believe that myth and lie, even as righteous in following the voluntarist teachings of Christ & his earthly messengers (prophets) as they were. That is the ultimate and issue & unfortunate moral of the story with people with Moroni and Pahoran. For as D&C 121:39 says,
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
Moroni, Pahoran, and many of the other otherwise righteous Nephite leaders were sadly no different. The exception to this rule would be people like Nephi, the Brother of Jared, or Alma the Elder, who saw the dangers of thrones of aggressive power and warned the people against them, as Samuel the Prophet in the Old Testament had warned the Israelites against the same thing. Again, this is not to condemn them as human beings per se, but rather, it is to use their story of mistakes as example, from which to learn from for our own latter-days so as not to repeat the same mistakes and prepare ourselves even more for living a Christ-like, Zion society based upon the principles of anarchy/voluntarism so that we can be ready for Christ when he comes again.
Under the principles of anarchy, rendering justice to those who commit aggressions against others is just and morally permitted. However, the justice rendered must fit the crime/aggression committed. Is death a just result for those who try to enslave others once they have been disarmed and arrested/imprisoned so they are no longer a threat? That’s certainly a debate to be had among anarchists. Some may answer in the affirmative, while others may answer in the negative. I would personally choose the side of the least amount of killing as possible and try to render justice in some other fashion via some form of restitution. But, what is answerable at this point is that, for certain, under the principles of anarchy, rendering some form of justice toward those who try to enslave you is entirely just, whatever form that justice takes. Lethal force is entirely justified for those actively trying to enslave you. Whether death is a fit form of justice for those who had attempted to enslave you but have since been disarmed and made no longer a threat remains a debate to be had among anarchists for another time. I would incline toward forgiveness and mercy, offering opportunities for repentance should the aggressors wish to have them & demonstrate remorse & a desire to no longer attempt to enslave or rule over others.
The other story of note in Alma 62 is Moroni once again, once overpowering the aggressing Laminates & disarming them, offering them the opportunity to enter into a covenant to not come against the Nephites again in aggression with attempts to murder and enslave them, and depart in peace. Many of these Laminates entered into the covenant of peace & desired to go live with their Laminate brethren in the land of Jershon where the Laminate people of Ammon lived. Many Laminate prisoners, who were likely compelled against their will via conscription of some sort, desired to flee the tyranny of the Laminate societies with their hierarchical & oppressive monarchies to live under the more free (though still not absolutely free and voluntarist) Nephite system of judges with their fellow Laminates in Jershon. And they did so and began farming production and other peaceful markets of commerce. Here again we see the humane side of Moroni, who used violence in self defense & to render justice against aggressions committed, but on the whole did not delight in bloodshed nor revenge most of the time. This goes to show Ince again that, juxtaposed with the Moroni dealing with the King-Men in an unjust manner, he was a fallible human being who often chose the moral way of life while occasionally slipping up and choosing the immoral path. No one bats a hundred, save Christ himself. This does not excuse the immoral choices of Moroni, of course.
Alma 62: “Regulation” of the Church & Corresponding Peace
Thomas Paine once wrote in his pamphlet “Dissertation on First Principles of Government,” written in the height of the French Revolution, that
It is at all times necessary, and more particularly so during the progress of a revolution, and until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things to their origin that we learn to understand them: and it is by keeping that line and that origin always in view that we never forget them.
Paine wrote these words after experiencing firsthand the Reign of Terror that began during the rise of Robespierre between the years of 1792-1794 and nearly becoming a headless victim of it, being ironically imprisoned as a counter-revolutionary and nearly losing his life by guillotine and then by jail sickness as a result of the extreme excesses of the Terror. To Paine, the reason the extremities of the Terror occurred was because the French had lost sight of “first principles,” or “revolution principles,” that the revolution was supposed to be about fighting for the equal rights of the individual in regards to government. Paine was wrong to put his trust in government, as all statists are. And although he came closer to anarchy than most of his “liberal” & “revolutionary” peers of his time, Paine was at the end of the day, still a firm believer in government and thus a statist. But that is not the point here. The point is that Paine felt it extremely important for the people to consistently be reminded and instructed on these “first principles” until they had them engrained into their brains so deeply that they would be as natural & known to them as eating and breathing. To Paine, this was how you could ensure the best government possible, by having a populace steeped so well in “first principles,” having them taught to them so frequently, that they lived them on a daily basis in all they did, including in forming and maintaining a government. Again, Paine was wrong, as all statists are, to place his faith in having a government, a throne of power that will always attract the worst of the people in society to obtain and use to live at the expense of others and oppress. It’s better not to give a monopoly on violent aggression to anyone, ever. But his notion of consistently instructing the people on these “first principles,” that EVERY human being has equal rights that come from their humanity and not as gifts from one human being to another, until it was so engrained in their very fibre of being so that it became natural habit for them to live those principles in all they did each day - this notion was an extremely important one that applies just as much today with regards to helping anarchy/voluntaryism spread to the point that governments fall away naturally because no one believes in them anymore because everyone treats every other person as the sovereign individual that they are, not aggressing upon others. This is an extremely important notion that we, as converted anarchists/voluntarists must continue to do as often as we can: preach the gospel of anarchy/voluntarism as often as we can, to as many people as we can, just as the Apostles and disciples of Christ preached his gospel after the termination of his earthly ministry and his departure from the earth. Only by this preaching, over a period of time, can we eventually turn the tide in favor of the freedom and individual liberty of anarchy/voluntarism and perhaps even defeat statism and its inherent aggression and slavery.
We see an interesting parallel of this occur in Alma 63 where, after the war with the Laminates had finally terminated in the Nephites victory over the aggressing Lamanites, Moroni retired from military life and so did Helaman, who, more importantly, went back to preaching the gospel & ways of Christ, making a “regulation in the church” just as Alma the Younger had done, visiting the members of each church and making sure they were straight as to the doctrines of Christ they should be teaching and living. And as a result of the this “regulation” in the church, where the people were set straight as to the teachings of living the ways of Christ, who should come, i.e. peace and non-aggression, there was not only continual peace but much prosperity, prosperity without the lifting up of others in pride due to their riches. The verses say:
44 And Pahoran did return to his judgment-seat; and Helaman did take upon him again to preach unto the people the word of God; for because of so many wars and contentions it had become expedient that a regulation should be made again in the church.
45 Therefore, Helaman and his brethren went forth, and did declare the word of God with much power unto the convincing of many people of their wickedness, which did cause them to repent of their sins and to be baptized unto the Lord their God.
46 And it came to pass that they did establish again the church of God, throughout all the land.
47 Yea, and regulations were made concerning the law. And their judges, and their chief judges were chosen.
48 And the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to multiply and to wax exceedingly strong again in the land. And they began to grow exceedingly rich.
49 But notwithstanding their riches, or their strength, or their prosperity, they were not lifted up in the pride of their eyes; neither were they slow to remember the Lord their God; but they did humble themselves exceedingly before him.
50 Yea, they did remember how great things the Lord had done for them, that he had delivered them from death, and from bonds, and from prisons, and from all manner of afflictions, and he had delivered them out of the hands of their enemies.
51 And they did pray unto the Lord their God continually, insomuch that the Lord did bless them, according to his word, so that they did wax strong and prosper in the land.
Now, it is true that while the ways of Christ who should come, non-aggression and peace, were taught to the people in the church and the church spread vastly throughout the land again, there was still a government, the judges system, and thus there was still taxation and other forms of aggression still occurring as a result of this government still existing. Obviously, the teachings of Christ who should come were only understood and/or taught to a certain extent, and were not understood and/or taught to the extent that the people shed their faith in the arm of flesh and thus government completely. But the principles of Christ who should come were taught & engrained in the people enough by this continual teaching and preaching of them by people like Helaman, who did sho voluntarily and earnestly, to ensure a relative stability and peace and mostly non-aggressive prosperity for the Nephite society. Regardless of the remaining aggression in the remaining government, we can still glean from this story in Alma 62 principles useful to us anarchists/voluntarists today who wish to see the disintegration of faith and belief in the necessity of government and thus the gradual evaporation of government altogether. We need to continue to play the long game, like the Apostles and disciples of Christ in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, earnestly and passionately preaching to all we can, as often as we can, the peaceful and Christian principles of non-aggression, self ownership, equal, individual rights, and the deligitimacy and inherent aggression and slavery of government. It is only after we have engrained these principles of anarchy into as many people’s heads and the very fires of their being, so that they become as natural to them as eating and breathing, that we can have the ability of achieving an anarchist society. And it is not enough to engrain these principles in the minds of one single generation. We must continue to engrain these principles into the minds of the younger generations as well via the same teaching and preaching of anarchist principles. For this is the lesson the Book of Mormon has to offer us in correlation with anarchy: if younger generations are not taught these “first principles,” as often and as earnestly as they were with the older generations, the younger generations will be easily swayed by the enemies of anarchy, the Satanic, aggressive, slaver statists who will try to ensnare the younger generations in the lies and false promises of statism til they help enslave and destroy everyone. This is a recurrent theme in the Book of Mormon. Younger generations routinely rebelled against the ways of Christ, I.e. non-aggression, peace, love, & free will and responsibility and thus got enough people on their side to bring down the rest of society by turning them to their evil ways as well. Like in the Book of Mormon with continually teaching the principles of Christ, we must continue to preach the principles of anarchy (which I maintain are one and the same as the principles of Christ) as far and wide as we possibly can. And it will be a ministry that must continue for as long as we live, for evil will always try to gain a foothold amongst the younger generations especially. The minute we relax and become slothful in our anarchic ministry/preaching, that is the foothold evil is looking for and all the opening of the door it needs to creep its way in and enslave as many to its teachings as it possibly can, opening that crack further and further till the door is wide open for evil to march right in and trample in power those who believe and practice non-aggression, having gained the upper hand in numbers. We must, as anarchists, play the long game and never cease to spread the gospel of anarchy. We must continue to make a regulation of our ourselves, our families and relationships, in our neighborhoods and communities, and boldly proclaim what we know to be morally right and true, that non-aggression & respect of each individual’s sovereignty, self-ownership, and thus their individual rights is the path to obtaining long lasting peace and prosperity.
Alma 63: Free migration & Separation
As discussed already regarding the migrations of Lehi & his family into the Arabian desert wilderness and on to the Americas, and touched upon again in relation to the Mulekite migration to the Americas, free migration of people, individuals or groups of individuals, over the earth we all live on is a key feature of anarchist principles and it’s two governing pinnacles of the non-aggression principle & property ownership, including self-ownership or ownership of oneself, i.e. a property in oneself. Homesteading, i.e. the act of mixing one’s labor with unclaimed and unowned land or some other kind of earthly property, laying out boundaries of that property, and laying claim to it as one’s own to control is one of the derivative principles of these 2 governing ideas in anarchist philosophy. The Lehites, Mulekites, and an earlier group that will be discussed later in the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites, all exercised this right inherent in their self-ownership, homesteading different parts of previously unowned/unclaimed land for the support of their lives as they traveled to their promised land destinations. As they traveled, they temporarily homesteaded, making different areas their own until they moved on, upon which they abandoned the land and their claim to it and the land entered back into a state of nature where it was once again unclaimed and unowned and open for the taking by others who might wish to homestead it. All 3 groups left the old world, taking different routes, and ended up in what has been most logically concluded by LDS scholars as Mesoamerica, particularly an specific area of centering around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec on the Southern Mexico and Guatemalan border, including the Yucatan. Dr. John L. Lund has a fantastic and very persuasive book detailing the many evidences that the Nephite, Laminate, Mulekite, and Jaredite civilizations either began or mixed with & resulted in those of the ancient Mesoamerican high civilizations that we are still rediscovering today, such as the Olmecs, the Maya, the Toltecs and Zapotecs, the Mexica/Aztecs, etc. Lund posits that the Lehite and Jaredite groups had a Pacific crossing while the Mulekit group had an Atlantic crossing. Whichever way they came from, they homesteaded along the way, and eventually landed in what is most likely Mesoamerica and homesteaded land there to make it their own as well, as a land of their inheritance or their promised land. As their civilizations grew into cities and the populations grew in those cities, they began to branch out further and further into the region, homesteading more and more of the land. And in Alma 63, we see one such instance of further homesteading occur, where a man named Hagoth, a Nephite, built ships and ferried Nephites wishing to depart the land of Zarahemla into the land northward where they started their own cities and civilizations. Indeed, it’s also possible that some of these Nephites in these ships went departed the continent entirely and ventured into the oceans, discovering or encountering the Pacific Polynesian islands. There’s no direct proof of this, but it remains a possibility nonetheless. It’s possible the Polynesian peoples and their civilizations were started by Nephites departing the Mesoamerican continental landmass, or its possible those Nephites encountered the Polynesian peoples already on the Pacific islands and traded with them or possibly even remained with them and influenced their culture. All remain possibilities, though without direct and solid evidence to prove either one. Either way, what we do know from the scriptural record is Hagoth and many Nephites, possibly numbering into the hundreds, maybe thousands, took their leave of the land Zarahemla for the land northward to homestead that area of land. Sadly, there are many in the world today, especially the United States, that are loudly screeching about “illegal immigration.” Their screeching is either because immigrants from other parts of the world are entering border states that share a border with Mexico “without permission” of the “legal authorities,” doing it “unfairly” and “disorderly,” “illegally,” or they screech because SOME of the immigrants MAY go on and try to take advantage of “free” tax payer funded welfare programs. Not only have such screech owls forgotten their own familial immigrant roots, whose ancestors did not get “permission” from “established authorities” or the native populations already living in the Americas to migrate and homestead land here, but rather they simply went and did it of their own accord. They forget or simply can’t recognize that free migration over the world across unowned land is a right every individual has by way of self-ownership. Alma 63 also gives one further example of the right to free migration, in verse 14-15 that is quite relevant to today and those who wail & moan about “illegal immigration” & the alleged negative consequences of such:
14 And it came to pass also in this year that there were some dissenters who had gone forth unto the Lamanites; and they were stirred up again to anger against the Nephites.
15 And also in this same year they came down with a numerous army to war against the people of Moronihah, or against the army of Moronihah, in the which they were beaten and driven back again to their own lands, suffering great loss.
In 56-52 B.C. Mesoamerica, where and when this event of dissident migration took place, these Nephite dissidents who voluntarily left the Nephite realms of the land of Zarahemla to go south and up to the highlands of Guatemala where the Laminates dwelt, it would have been easy the Nephite to try to stop these dissidents from leaving, citing protection against them stirring the Laminates up to war again against the Nephites. After all, they had just finished fighting a war against the invading Laminates who had been stirred up to war against the Nephites by dissident Nephites. It had happened multiple times already. The precedent and likelihood of it happening again was there. And yet, these dissident Nephites were free to leave and join the Laminates, despite the high possibility of them doing exactly what they ended up doing again, stirring the Laminates up into a frenzy to come against the Nephites in war yet again. The Nephites could have tried to coercively and aggressively keep those dissident Nephites from leaving and doing just that. But they didn’t. We can’t know for certain the reason why they didn’t try to do that, but it’s likely they they didn’t want those dissidents around anymore anyway and were happy to see them go, as they likely were dissidents like the previous king-men who were wanting a more tryannical, dictatorial regime than was in existence in Zarahemla. It’s also likely that, due to the “regulation” in the church and the reconverting of much of the population to the principles of Christ, i.e. anarchy/voluntarism, they knew that keeping the dissidents imprisoned simply for their beliefs would be morally wrong. Therefore, they let them leave of their will, happy to see them go and trouble them no more while remaining hopefully they wouldn’t stir up more trouble. Unfortunately, stir up more trouble they did, though the Nephite armies were able to defeat the new invading and aggressing Laminates armies one again and push them back. This is relevant to today because the so-called closed border types who wail and moan against “illegal immigration,” or crossing imaginary border lines over what is actually unowned property/land use the excuse that these immigrants MIGHT possibly commit crime when they get here and thus they have the authority to aggressively and forcefully prevent them from coming in by border walls, border patrols, and aggressive deportations. It would have been just as morally wrong for the Nephites to keep the Nephites dissidents in Zarahemla, imprisoned, aggressively violating their self-ownership and right to free movement by forcefully preventing them from traveling south the Laminate territory under the guise of preventing POSSIBLE stirring up of the Laminates to war yet again. And just as it would have been morally wrong and tyrannical for the Nephites to prevent the dissidents from leaving, regardless of the consequences of them doing so, it is morally wrong for Americans and all “nations” and societies today to aggressively, forcefully, and violently keep others out by preventing them from exercising their rights to free movement over unowned land or over privately owned property they have been invited upon or given permission to travel over. Individuals have the right, inherent in their humanity and in their self-ownership over their body and being, to travel upon unowned land or owned land they have been invited upon. Just as much of the land in the ancient Mesoamerica was not privately owned by individuals and thus people were free to traverse crossed it and go to and from wherever they pleased, and the Nephites who ventured northward and the dissident Npephites who ventures southward to the Laminates, the borderlands between Mexico and the US and Canada and the US are not privately owned by anybody. And thus, being unowned and unhomesteaded as no individual can provide proof of title to those borderlands by homesteading or purchase, they are free open for people to traverse crossed or homestead and call their own. That the US government has taken that land captive in the name of “the nation” and “the people” or “the government” and holds it hostage, forestalling people from crossing or homesteading it is merely a case of aggression on the part of the organized criminal gang that is government. It is a criminal act, as is kidnapping any found crossing it or homesteading it. Governments can own nothing, as governments are nothing but gangs of aggressive gangs of criminals who steal and forestall via theft and threats of other aggressions in order for them to exist. Thus, they can not legitimately and morally own anything as they are built upon and require aggression to exist. Thus, whatever lands governments claim to control and hold hostage from the inhabitants of the earth who would make it their own via homesteading, they are not actually owned by anyone. Not the government and not “the people” the governments pretend to speak for or base their existence and legitimacy upon. Thus, no just and legitimate titles to that property exist to that land as it has been stolen and immorally and aggressively held captive by the criminal gangs called government. It is therefore unowned and open to anyone to cross or homestead and claim their own. For, as John Locke has explained it, once one has mixed one’s labor with the land in some form, clearly marking off the boundaries of the portions one claims based on one’s mixing one’s labor with it, the land then is homesteaded and title is created, thus becoming the homesteader’s property.
Alma 63 thus gives several examples of the Nephites recognizing this right to self-ownership and free movement over unowned land and the right to homestead said unowned land and make it one’s own by mixing one’s labor with it and marking it’s boundaries by the individual homesteader(s), thus creating legal and moral title to it as private property. They recognized this right very likely because of the regulation in the church that Helaman brought about through teaching and preaching in the individuals churches in the different cities that made up the Nephite area of “the land of Zarahemla,” which teachings were the anarchic and voluntaristic principles of the Christ to come, the very principles were have been discussing this entire time: the principles of non-aggression, peace, individual rights and freedom, persuasion, patience, and love, i.e. the ways of Christ. And at this point in time, despite the threats of further Laminates aggression if Nephite dissidents left to go live among the Laminates yet again, the Nephites recognized and lived by the rights of self-ownership and freedom of movement over unowned land and, regardless of the consequences that could possible come in living solidly by those principles of morality.
It is at this time that the Book of Alma comes to a close, chapter 63 being its end, and the Book of Mormon continues on with the Book of Helaman, covering the writings of Helaman, the son of Helaman who fought with Moroni against the Lamanites, Pahoran the Chief Judge, and Nephi and Lehi, two younger Nephi prophets/teachers of Christ named after their forefathers. Thus far we have seen much teaching of the principles of anarchy/voluntarism, AKA the ways of Christ, throughout the Book of Mormon thus far, both in the form of stories of the Nephites and Laminates abiding by them or violating them and reaping the rewards of doing so. It is in the Book of Helaman that we see the role reverse between the Nephites and the Lamanites, where the Nephites become the more wicked and the Laminates become the more righteous and Christ-like of the two groups. It is also where we see, as a result of the turn toward wickedness by the Nephites, their government gets highjacked by the wicked in their society and overtaken by evil criminals who then use its power to rule tyrannically over the people and bring it crashing down entirely. In short, it is in the Book of Helaman that we see the Game of Thrones really start to take effect and the wicked in Nephite society begin to seek the seats of power by aggressive or flattering, lying means so as to murder, steal, enslave, and oppress without consequence.
The first chapter of the Book of Helaman begins with a mother game of thrones scenario between invading Laminates & the Nephites, where evil, power hungry people in Nephite society murder the Chief Judge and the Laminates invading and take the city of Zarahemla, upon which the Nephites fight back and retake Zarahemla. Pahoran, the Chief Judge at the time of Moroni and Helaman in the Book of Alma, passed away and his son, Pahoran the second became the new Chief Judge in his place. But this passing of power between Pahoran the elder and Pahoran the younger did not go smoothly. There was much controversy over which of Pahoran’s sons should take the judgement seat. Herein begins the game of thrones, the vying for power over the Nephites people & the inherent civil strife that comes along with people vying for the throne of power and the factions of society that back each candidate. Pahoran the elder had three sons who vied for the judgement seat, Pahoran the younger, Paanchi, and Pacumeni. Each one, like today’s politicians in the US, especially those running for the office of US President, had their own backers and followers and there was much contention in the vote of who would take the judgement seat, probably not at all unlike the contention between Republicans and Democrats in federal and state elections. Each side had their “vision” of ruling in the judgement seat and those who supported that “vision,” those who would stand to benefit from their preferred candidate winning. In the end, Pahoran the elder won the election, taking the majority vote of the “voice of the people.” Pahoran’s brother, Pacumeni gave in to the majority vote when the vote came in, upholding the vote of the majority and siding with it, while Panache and his followers attempted to rise up in rebellion against “the voice of the people.” But his rebellion was not to be free from the rule of his brother, Pahoran. Rather, his rebellion was to seize the throne from his brother, Pahoran, and rule in his stead. Whether he would have made a better “governor” or not, remains a mystery, but in all likelihood he probably wouldn’t have been any better than Pahoran as again he sought to rule. They all did. They all sought to rule over the people, to exercise authority over them. But Panachi would likely have been an even worse ruler as he was willing to commit rebellion for the sake of ruling, of becoming the ruler, and not for the sake of not being ruled, of freeing himself and his followers from being ruled. For his attempted coup, Panachi was arrested, tried, and put to the death for “trying to destroy the liberty of the people.” This is of course ironic, seeing as Pahoran himself, the winner of the election, was destroying the liberty for the people by his very nature of being elected as the new the Chief Judge, that position being a throne of power that required theft from the people under the euphemism of “taxation” to pay for government offices like his and the army and revenue collectors. Putting Panachi to death because he rebelled against Pahoran’s unjust ruled for the sake of becoming the new ruler is morally questionable. We have no idea as to what type of ruler Paanchi would have been. He could have been better than Pahoran or he could have been worse. We also don’t have any context on the extent of his rebellion. Was it violent? Was it merely a push for a revote? Was it a coup? All we know is he and his followers “rose up in rebellion” to make himself thew ruler instead of Pahoran and he was put to death for it on the accusation that he attempted to “destroy the liberty of the people.” But again, the “liberty of the people” was already destroyed by having the judges system to begin with, and Pahoran’s hands were no more clean in that destruction of liberty than his brother Paanchi’s. They all SOUGHT the throne, remember. They wanted to rule. They all had their factions behind them. Getting a majority to support your attempt to obtain the throne of power in order to rule over other and commit aggressions against them in the name of “liberty” and “safety” is no less treasonous to the liberty and individual rights of humanity than getting a minority to support you in trying to obtain the same throne to do the very same thing. Pahoran and Pacumeni were as guilty as Paanchi. The only difference is that the former had the pretend “legitimacy” of the majority, the “voice/will of the people.” Remember, per 1st Samuel 8, which the Nephites had in the Brass Plates as they contained a record of the Jews and Israel down to the reign of King Zedekiah, Israel’s lusting for a government like the gentiles, the “nations of the world,” where human flesh was elevated over the rest to rule over them instead of God being their teacher, guide, and judge, was a rejection of God and thus sinful & a step away from freedom and liberty. God, being the same yesterday, today, and forever, would no doubt still disapprove of the Nephites insisting on having a human government like the rest of the nations of the world, like the Gentiles, as such governments destroy the liberty forever given to man/woman by God’s creation of him/her by elevating one or some humans over the rest to exercise power and authority over them so as to control them, to enslave them to their will or whoever’s will they represent. For, as Alma the Elder had stated long ago in Mosiah 23, “Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another,” that we should “stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you,” and that “every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them.”
King, judge, there is no difference. It is esteeming one flesh above another by giving him/her power to do things that individuals otherwise do not have a right to do. Thus Panachi’s crime was no greater than his brothers’ crime, for they were the same crime: to rule over the rest. That Pahoran and Pacumeni many have been better followers of God than perhaps Paanchi (although we cannot fully determine that from the context provided by the scripture) means very little when it comes to them desiring to and actually wielding the raw power of aggression and violence of the judgement seat in order to rule over the rest of the Nephite people. Thus, a less harsh and unjust consequence for Paanchi would have been more in order, whatever it may be. But death was certainly over the top and an immoral consequence that didn’t really fit the crime. Paanchis’s only wrong was trying to do what Pahoran and Pacumeni did, strive for the power of the judgement seat, attempting to overturn the voice of the people. Never mind that the voice of the people was tyrannical to begin with, choosing one of those 3 to rule over the people in aggressive violence. The majority of the people imposing their will regarding a certain ruler on the minority is destroying the liberty of the people just as much as a minority attempting to impose their will on the majority. Paanchi merely fought against the majority while the majority fought to impose their will on the minority, Paanchi & his followers. I see no difference between either side and what they ultimately sought to do, i.e. rule and exercise aggressive, violent authority over others. Thus Paanchi didn’t deserve death and his death was possibly tantamount to murder on the side of Pahoran, depending on the rest of the context we are not provided in the scripture itself. Indeed, his death was even more unjust given the fact that he hadn’t actually fully risen up in rebellion. He was about the flatter away the people to rise up in rebellion when he was seized and killed. He hadn’t actually gotten the people to rise up in rebellion. He may have rebelled, in planning to rally the people to rebel with him, but he had not had time and the ability to get the people to rise up in rebellion. Either way, as discussed, putting him to death was very likely an injustice that Pahoran will have to answer to God for, as it was all part of the aggression and violence inherent in “the game of thrones.”
Indeed, the very deed of putting of Paanchi to death for wishing to be ruler instead of Pahoran set in motion the deadliest power struggle for the throne, for the supporters of Paanchi conspired to have Pahoran murdered as well in revenge for his slaughter of their cult leader, Paanchi. They conspired together to send one of their numberer, one Kishkumen, to murder Pahoran in retaliation. Kishkumen fled after murdering Pahoran while he sat on the judgement seat and went back to the followers of Paanchi and they vowed to each other to never reveal Kishkumen and his deed to anyone, making a “secret combination,” as the Book of Mormon calls them, a group that protects each other in their crimes against others so as to be able to commit their crimes while facing no consequences. This specific Kishkumenish secret combination was akin to our modern day Mafia, an organized crime syndicate that protected each other in robbery, murder, and ruling over others. If that sounds familiar to our modern day ears, it should, for that is what government is. Indeed, there is no better, no more blatant example of this in our modern day government that the police force, where the “Thin Blue Line” culture reigns supreme wherein, instead of holding each other accountable for their misdeeds, they back each other and protect each other in their crimes, whether those crimes be their every day aggressive enforcement of unjust laws or more heinous crimes such as murder and torture. Take for example the most recent incident of police murder of a private civilian in her home: Sonya Massy. She had called the cops because she thought there was a prowler in her yard. The cops came into her home, proceeded to ask her for her ID, to which she responded she needed to check on the boiling water on the stove first so as not to have that cause or problems with fire. The cops agreed and told her to do so. She took the pot of boiling water off the stove and turned around, to which the cops began to back away. Sonya asked them where they were going and then one of the cops proceeded to pull his gun and point it in her face and started yelling at her to drop the pot. Now this cop’s partner SHOULD have talked his gun pulling partner down and de-escalated him and the situation, even pulling his gun on his partner if needed to protect Sonya from his partner turning unhinged on the compliant and non-aggressive civilian. But that is not what cops do. They have it hammered into their heads that they protect each other in their deeds no matter what happens and that, much like in a prison gang, snitches get stitches and rats lose their jobs, if not more. The Thin Blue Line culture within the police force is very much akin to these covenants of the Nephite secret combinations, wherein they swear to never reveal each other’s misdeeds and identities, i.e. to never turn on each other and rat each other out, but to support each other in their crimes against others. And that is exactly what happened in the case of Sonya Massy. The gun pulling maniac cop ended up murdering Sonya in her own home by shooting her in her face several times. And what did his partner do? He pulled his gun on Sonya as well and watched it all happen, doing nothing to intervene. Fortunately, due to body cam footage and badge numbers, we know exactly who these officers were and the murdering cop has been fired and charged with murder. But this is a rare outcome. Many at time these thieving, murdering cops get off either scot-free, facing at most paid leave, or being fired wherein they simply go and apply to work at another police station. Such was the case in Daniel Shaver’s murder in Arizona. The murdering cop faced no legal charges against him because their Thin Blue Line secret combination protected him in his murder. The police force is just but one small, more visible example of these secret combinations dominating our lives in government today. But make no mistake they run deep throughout all arms of the government, whether local, county, state or federal.
Now, in the case of Kishkumen and his band of Paanchi followers, perhaps some of them were lesser judges or other Nephite government workers of some kind, or perhaps they were all purely private non-governmental individuals. Regardless, the parallels are clear. A group of people, whether governmental or not, a gang of thugs, swears to protect each other in the crimes they commit and never reveal to anyone the identities of who does what so as to get away with their crimes. They can take the form of private sector gangs like local city gangs, mafias, and cartels, or public sector tax payer funded, i.e. tax payer robbed, gangs euphemistically called government. We’ll see in the Book of Mormon how these secret combinations take both forms, and eventually come to dominate the Nephite government itself.
As Helaman 1 continues, Pacumeni, Pahoran and Panachi’s still living brother, takes the judgement seat to rule in Pahoran’s stead. The Kishkumen secret combination continues to walk free amongst the Nephite society, since at the time of committing the murder of Pahoran, Kishkumen had worn a disguise and thus was not known as the murderer. Trouble starts brewing at the southern borders when the Laminates once again come against the Nephites in war, aggressively invading the Nephite lands and taking cities, this time lead by yet again another Nephite dissenter named Coriantumr. Coriantumr was likely one of those dissenting Nephites recently discussed that left Zarahemla to go southward and join with the Lamanites. Coriantomr and his numerous Laminates army marched directly into Zarahemla, where the Nephites were caught off guard as a result of their game of thrones fighting over the power of the judgement seat and driven from their own great city. Pacumeni was killed in the process of fleeing by the invading Lamanites. The city belonged the Laminates now. But the Laminates wanted all the Nephite lands, and began marching down the center of the Nephites lands destroying all that came in their way. The Chief Captain of the Nephite Armies, Moronihah was able to organize the Neophyte armies and surround the Laminates on all sides and give them battle, wherein Coriantomr was killed and the Laminates forced to surrender. They were disarmed, taken prisoner and then released to go back to their own lands in peace and Moronihah and the Nephite armies took possession of Zarahemla and secured their lands.
Now this was able to happen, the Nephites caught by surprise all because they were fighting each other over who would be the ruler of their society, who would be their slave master. Their attention was taken away from the Laminates and placed solely on a mini civil war between factions backed by different groups of the Nephite people over the throne of power. This is an important thing to remember. This infighting amongst the Nephites over who would rule over whom caused them to be completely unawares of danger from without from the Laminate threat. Had they not been distracted over their game of thrones, they may have been able to put up a more immediate and stronger defense against the invading Laminates and prevented them from breaching the Nephite lands, saving the lives and property of who knows how many Nephites and Laminates combined. But they were too busy fighting over trying to control each other that they weren’t paying attention to their nemesis who had constantly been trying to invade and become their new rulers. The moral of the story is not to divide and become distracted by fighting each other over who will be the slave master so as to get distracted from bigger threats. This is what thrones of power do. They cause division, strife and fighting amongst societies and lead to much destruction in them as a result. This is one of THE most important lessons of the Book of Mormon for our day. It warns us of the dangers of allowing these secret combinations to be erected amongst us, and one of the worst forms of these secret combinations is government, which provides a throne of power for different groups to fight over and destroy each other over in the attempt to wield power over others. Such thrones of power attract the worst of the worst, wherein they often succeed in obtaining the throne and then proceed to establish a secret combination wherein they protect each other in their crimes. But with government, it just so happens that their everyday actions in maintaining that government are crimes, i.e. taxation/theft and “law enforcement,” in addition to whatever other extra legal/judicial crimes they commit.
Helaman Chapter 2 the rise of the Gadianton Robbers
As discussed in Helaman chapter 1, there was a contention among the Nephites concerning who of Pahoran the elder, the Chief Judge’s 3 sons would become the new chief judge upon his death. This gave rise to civil strife between the sons and their factions among the people over the throne of aggressive power & all that came with it. Pahoran the younger was voted in by the majority while Pacumeni yielded to the majority and Paanchi tried to raise a rebellion among his faction so as to take the seat and was sentenced to death as a result. Some among Paanchi’s faction of followers, angry at his slaughter at the hands of the very government and throne he sought to obtain and rule from, covenanted with each other to kill Pahoran, obtain the judgement seat, and protect each other in their committing of the murder. One among them, one Kishkumen, did the deed and killed Pahoran while in disguise so as not to be discovered. And discovered he was not, for he and the majority of those who had entered into this “secret combination” walked freely among the people. Now, Paanchi’s followers were obviously evil people if they were willing to commit murder in his name in order to obtain the throne of power. This might clue us in to the character of Paanchi himself and what type of ruler he would have been had he been able to obtain the judgement seat. But we can’t know for certain. All we know is that he tried to raise a rebellion among his followers and the people generally so as to remove Pahoran the younger after the majority had elected him as Chief Judge and he was killed for it. In reality, as previously discussed, he was no different from Pahoran and Pacumeni in seeking the throne of power to rule over the people by the power of aggression with the police force and army that came along with it to enforce their rulings and decrees. Paanchi may have been a more immoral person, perhaps more tyrannical than Pahoran and Pacumeni, but one thing is for certain: they were all tyrannical to a degree in that they sought a throne of power the placed them above everyone else in power over them to force their decrees on them. Whether they would have ruled in righteousness or not is moot as the power to rule over the people and steal from them in order to fuel and feed the judges system and its enforcement arm was always there. Whether one individual was more righteous than the others ultimately matters little in the game of thrones, Nephite or otherwise. A majority of people getting together and appointing a person to be a thief and ruler over everyone else with the ability & pretended, “legitimate” authority from the nebulous, ethereal “will of the people” to exercise aggression against them and bind them regardless of their choice and consent in the matter is no different from a minority getting together to appoint a person to be a thief and ruler over others. Whether Pahoran and Pacumeni intended to use that throne of power only to punish legit crime or not matters little in the face of the fact that the throne offered raw power to, in the very least, steal and kidnap people, even put them to death as we’ve seen, or at most, be even more tyrannical. It differed very little in reality from the dictatorship of a king, for the Chief Judge was essentially king. And when your system of government depends entirely upon getting the “right” moral human in there to rule in righteousness, it can just as easily be seized by the evil human beings in that society to rule in wickedness and tyranny. The problem is, regardless of the system, not picking the right person to sit in the throne. The problem is the throne itself existing and giving whoever occupies it special power over the lives and property of others that they do not deserve and would not have otherwise absent the army and superstitious belief of “legitimacy” and “authority” that comes along with it, giving it its power. In short, Paanchi’s crime was no different from that of his brothers Pahoran and Pacumeni, seeking the throne to rule from themselves. What made his crime worse in their eyes is that he sought it after the “majority” had given their superstitious will. But in reality, they were all guilty of the same crime, desiring to rule over others and thus exercise authority over them that they did not deserve as no one has a right to rule over others and exercise any kind of aggression against them. Thus, putting him to death because he committed the same crime against them after they had already swayed the majority to support them in their rule from the throne of power was not the wisest move. Perhaps some kind of consequence or response was justified as Paanchi may have been willing to use aggressive violence to obtain the throne of power in his “rebellion,” though the chapter is silent on that aspect. It just says he tried to raise a rebellion. Either way, neither of Pahoran the elder’s sons, nor Pahoran himself, had clean hands, as they all sought to obtain the throne of power to unjustly rule over others and commit aggressions against them in the name of that throne and its “government.” And either way, killing Paanchi was not the wisest move on the part of Pahoran the younger as Chief Judge. For it triggered a series of murderous struggles for the throne that ultimately ended in the entire downfall of the Nephite civilization and its “government.” Paanchi’s death at the hand of Pahoran the younger’s reign from the throne of power triggered Paanchi’s followers to murder Pahoran and form a band of robbers and murderers that would go on to plague the Nephite civilization as they sought, like the dissenting Nephites using the armies of the Lamanites, to obtain the throne of power over the Nephites that Pahoran the elder, younger, and other Nephite elites ruled from. The object may no longer have been to install a monarchy, per se, like had been Amaliakiah and the king-men’s intention from the Book of Alma. The intention was still the same though: obtain the throne of power, whatever that throne looked like, and use it get away with murder, theft, enslavement and all manner of aggressions against others using the power that came with it.
So, by the time of Helaman chapter 2, Kishkumen’s band gained a new leader amongst them, one named Gadianton, whose name gave the group their name, the Gadianton Robbers, as they came to be known ever after. As the verses describe:
1 And it came to pass in the forty and second year of the reign of the judges, after Moronihah had established again peace between the Nephites and the Lamanites, behold there was no one to fill the judgment-seat; therefore there began to be a contention again among the people concerning who should fill the judgment-seat.
2 And it came to pass that Helaman, who was the son of Helaman, was appointed to fill the judgment-seat, by the voice of the people.
3 But behold, Kishkumen, who had murdered Pahoran, did lay wait to destroy Helaman also; and he was upheld by his band, who had entered into a covenant that no one should know his wickedness.
4 For there was one Gadianton, who was exceedingly expert in many words, and also in his craft, to carry on the secret work of murder and of robbery; therefore he became the leader of the band of Kishkumen.
5 Therefore he did flatter them, and also Kishkumen, that if they would place him in the judgment-seat he would grant unto those who belonged to his band that they should be placed in power and authority among the people; therefore Kishkumen sought to destroy Helaman.
Gadianton’s purpose was that of Paanchi’s, Pahoran the younger’s, and Pacumeni’s, to rule from the judgement seat and give his murdeorus cronies positions of power in his regime so as to continue getting away with their murders and thefts. But, in reality, regardless of who ruled from the throne, aggression was the order of the day, for even when someone righteous like Helaman or Pahoran the elder or younger ruled from the throne, the throne and its system of government required power to commit aggression so as to feed itself so it could exist by way of robbing the people and exercising authority over them. Regardless of who occupied the throne, it, in the words of Alma the Elder back in Mosiah Chapter 23, elevated one flesh above another, making it so they “esteemed one flesh over another” or thought themselves to be over the others, which was contrary to what the Lord, Christ and the Father, desired for the human family. So Gadianton, Kishkumen, and their ilk were certainly evil people, much more evil than the likes of Pahoran, Pacumeni, and later Helaman. But, as per God’s desire for his human family, he did not wish one flesh to esteem himself/herself above the rest by exercising aggressive power against the others. God said as much in 1st Samuel Chapter 8 in the Bible and he said as much through Nephi and later Alma, but the Nephites, just like their brothers and sisters in Israel, desired to have a human government where one flesh was elevated above the other flesh so as to be like the other “nations of the world,” rejecting God as their teacher, guide, and judge. So, ever the respecter of man’s agency, God gave both societies what they desired, along with the consequences that came along with it, the destruction of his children’s equal liberty and rights, binding the many to the will of one or a few. God wished and still does wish for his children, Israelite or Gentile, to be free in the liberty he has given them by nature of their existence and their individual lives and bodies, to be masters over themselves and themselves only. God is an anarchist, a voluntarist. But he also lets mankind exercise his agency and thus allows mankind to make stupid choices and reap the rewards of those choices. And one of the consequences of his children choosing to esteem one flesh over another by erecting thrones of aggressive power for them to rule from is that it brought with it a continual struggle of fighting, theft, and bloodshed for said throne, the proverbial “game of thrones.” And that has been the story of monarchic Israel and its American brach, the Nephites, Laminates, Mulekites, and pre-Israelite Jaradites as found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It is still the story today in our modern day Gentile nations of the world, including the United States, the world’s global hegemonic imperial power, extending its aggressive rule over the entire planet. And the story of Kishkumen and Gadianton and the secret combination robber society they formed as a result of that game of thrones was just one more iteration of said game of thrones. If there is no throne of power, then there is no throne for secret combinations to form so as to obtain said throne of power to wield for their own benefit at the expense of others and pleasure in murdering, robbing and enslaving and ruling over others. This is the lesson of the Book of Mormon and the Bible, one which the Gentiles today, us, have yet to learn. It’s not just the secret combinations that we need to fear. It’s the thing that gives them a purpose to form and exist in the first place: the throne of aggressive power that they wish to obtain so as to murder, rob and enslave on a mass scale and get away with their crimes against humanity.
Now, the desire of Gadianton was to murder Helaman and be put in the judgement seat to wield power so as to rob, murder, and commit all manner of aggressions without facing justice. He therefore sent Kishkumen again to the judgement to murder Helaman. One of Helaman’s guards had gained the trust of Gadianton’s band of murderers & power seekers and learned their secret signs, likely hand shakes or something of that kind, and gave those signs to Kishkumen to signal he was one of them, getting Kishkumen to believe he could trust him and get him to lead him to Helaman and aid him in his plot to murder. The guard, however, as he faked leading Kishkumen to Helaman, turned around and stabbed Kishkumen in the hearr, killing him without making a sound. He then proceeded to tell Helaman what had occurred, from whence Helaman sent guards, or a police force, to arrest the rest of the Gadianton band, put them on trial, and put them to death. However, when Kishkumen did not return, Gadianton suspected he had been thwarted in his murder plot and he and his gang found out, so they fled the city of Zarahemla for the wilderness.
Again, Gadianton and his secret combination of power hungry thieves and murderers were evil people. There is no doubt about it. However, they weren’t so different from Helaman and those others in actual power. True, Helaman may not have been a murderer and he may not have been a tyrant per se nor a desiring tyrant like Gadianton. But he still wielded power over the people of Nephi, perhaps using it it mostly to fulfill legit demands of justice, but still committing injustice at the same time by weilding that power in the first place to commit acts of thievery in order to fund that throne of power and make dictates for the people, placing him in position of esteeming one flesh over another. And for all we know, he sought after that power. He may have been an infinitely better and more righteous man than Gadianton, et al, but his hands were still not clean. Gadianton sought power to rob and murder and enslave, to be a tyrant. Helaman and company sought power, perhaps to truly render justice, but they still sought power and power they obtained. And herein, again, lies the problem: a throne of power existed for people in the Nephite society to fight over so as to obtain and wield to their own desires, some wielding it less harshly than others and some desiring to wield it for even more nefarious purposes. But the throne caused these scuffles over power. Had the throne not existed and had the people simply ruled themselves in their own individuals lives and not sought to rule others via that throne and the monopoly on aggressive violence with all its wealth, power, and police force that came with it, then the incentive for Gadianton and his band to do all they could to obtain that throne would have been non-existent and they would have been left to their own devices in attempting to rule, murder, and rob.
And enslave, murder, and rob they may have still have done, on a small scale. But, they would not have had a throne of power to seek to obtain so as to help them enslave, murder, and rob on a larger, mass scale. As iterated above, the secret combinations were not the sole problem. They were but a symptom of the much larger illness. It was the thing that drove them to form and exist in the first place: the throne of power, tempting them to take it so as to commit their foul deeds on a mass scale while escaping justice by putting each other in positions of power so as to not hold each other accountable, obtaining a large cash of power, position of power, weapons, and a superstitious belief in the legitimacy of said throne with which to rob and murder and much as possible. Take away the throne, and all you have is individual Gadiantons or small groups of them verses other armed individuals or even larger groups of armed individuals who wish to protect themselves and each other in their rights, property, and therefore their liberty. Erect a throne of power and the secret combination issue aggravates at least ten fold. It’s not that under anarchy evil doesn’t or won’t exist or that there won’t be evil people who will attempt to rob, murder, enslave, and otherwise aggress against others. That will continue as always. Rather, under anarchy, it makes such individuals only as powerful as they can make themselves or convince others, usually a minority, to join them in their evil cause. With no throne of aggression, there is no organized monopoly on violence served dutifully by paid mercenaries excused in robbery, murder, kidnapping, and torture, and nor religious adherents to said throne. With no throne, Gadiantons are on equal ground with the rest of the majority of individuals who do not wish to commit evil but rather wish to go about their lives working for their daily bread and respecting the rights and liberty of their fellow neighboring individuals, recognizing that peaceful cooperation would bring prosperity and peace between all those who cooperated peacefully and respected each others’ individual rights. These Gadiantons would indeed prove to be the eventual downfall of the entire Nephite civilization. But in reality, it wasn’t necessarily just the Gadiantons that brought this downfall. They were the impetus, the force, that crashed it, yes. But what really was behind that crash, what enticed the Gadiantons to do so and gave them the catalyst to band together and the ability to actually bring that crash of the Nephite civilization about was the Nephite insistence, like the their Israelite cousins, on maintaining a throne of power, a human government in which certain human beings were elevated above others & given raw power, incentive, and ability to rule over them, power that was given a faux “divine” legitimacy as well as a mercenary police force to back it up, force it, and feed it via theft & threats of punishment, i.e. terror. Take away the throne and there’s no incentive for Gadiantons to form & conspire together to obtain it so as to commit evil and aggressions against others on a mass, wide scale. With no throne of aggression, there is no organized monopoly on violence served dutifully by mercenaries and religious adherents and such people as Gadianton are left to their own devices, equal and free to attempt their aggressive as everyone else is to band together to defend themselves against their aggression.
Helaman 3: Free Migration & Trade
In Helaman chapter 3, there is mention of more dissensions and contentions amongst the Nephites which leads to a good portion of the Nephite civilization leaving the land of Zarahemla, usually thought to being located around the modern Isthmus of Tehuantepec and encompassing the Yucatan as the land of Bountiful and the state of Chiapas in Southern Mexico. These migrating Nephites, which include some of the people of Ammon, who were Laminates by birth, go into the “land northward” to “inherit” the land, a land full of many rivers and large waters but was also stripped of much timber, requiring the migrating peoples to find other means of housing, including tents and buildings of cement. Where exactly this “land northward” was cannot be fully known, but it could have been somewhere around present day Mexico City, which in the time of the Spanish Conquest and Hernan Cortez was known as Tenochtitlan, which was a powerful city state on an island in the middle of a lake connected the shores by paths and roads. Wherever the “land northward” was and whatever ares of present day Mexico it encompassed, and regardless of the reason these Nephites and former Laminates left, what’s important to us is that they did indeed leave and did indeed inherit the land for themselves, spreading across it, taming it, making it their own. Or in other words, they exercised their right io free travel and migration over unowned land or land owned but upon which they were welcomed upon, along with their right to homestead and make what they homestead their property. Homesteading and property rights are fundamental principles within anarchy, as had already been much discussed. But ever further than these departing Nephites exercising the right to free migration and homesteading, they also established a peaceful network of trade with the land southward, a trade built principally around the export of timber from the south to the land northward by way of shipping. Whether that “shipping” meant shipping by way of water or overland is not entirely known, but it could have included both. But what is important is that the people of the land northward and the people of the land southward kept up a peaceful relationship despite whatever differences they had they made the northerners depart in the first place, enough to keep up a system of trade built around the shipping of timber, for in the land north, the previous or current occupants had stripped the land of much of its timber, either by way of slash and burning agriculture or by using the timber for their own purposes. Free trade between different people exercising their rights to homesteading and the ownership and control of their property and exchanging it with others for other types of property, this trade has a de-aggressing, pacifying effect on societies. All tend to get what they desire, something else for something they already have, something they desire more than what they currently have, and an incentive to keep the other people who have what you want happy by treating them with respect tends to prevail so as to continue to persuade them to want to trade what they have for what the other people have.
Helaman 3-4: Wickedness Never Was Happiness.
In Helaman chapter 3, the Nephites have a period of flourishing where they prosper for a time in peace, having, for the most part converted to the ways of peace. They still have a human government, a throne of power, so it was not all peaceful. But, for the most part, aside from still insisting on living under a human ruler sitting on a throne of power and all the wickedness that comes with such, even when you have a generally peaceful and decent individual sitting on that throne, things started looking up for the Nephites given their general, mostly peaceful living. There were some dissensions and contentions, over what specifically is not stated explicitly. But there were some who, dissenting for whatever reason, utilized their freedom of movement and association and left the land of Zarahemla for the land northward to homestead and inherit it. And despite their dissensions or disagreements over whatever caused them to separate and part ways, the people who traveled northward still kept up trade with the people southward that they had departed from. Despite their differences, whatever those differences were that caused them to separate and disassociate, they continued to maintain peaceable enough relations in physical separation to allow an anarchic trade to continue, specifically in the shipping of timber north from the south as the timber in the north had been much stripped. And eventually things settled down in the land of Zarahmela among the Nephites, primarily because, while they still were mistaken in maintaining a thrown of power, they at least had a good, righteous individual occupying it at the time, i.e. Helaman. Helaman walked after the ways of God, i.e. peace and non-aggression, for the most part, occupying the judgement seat in “justice and equity”, according to verse 20 of Helaman 3, observing “to keep the statutes, and the judgments, and the commandments of God.” And as a result of a generally good and peaceful man occupying the throne of power, peace began to spread throughout the land. But this is how thrones of power go, whether they be kings in name actuality or kings in all but name, also known as “judges” or “politicians,” “presidents,” “governors,” or “bureaucrats,” etc. As Alma the Elder said long ago after his people fled the evil tyrannical regime of King Noah, and as Mosiah said as he transitioned to the people from monarchy to the democratic judges system, sometimes you have a good people on the throne and the oppressions of the throne are felt but little, and sometimes you have evil tyrants on the throne and the evil and pain and oppression of the throne, that religiously fake “authority” infused monopoly on violence is felt greatly. This is the story of all human governments, and the Nephite version, just as the Israelite version, was no different. Regardless of who occupies the throne, the power of the throne and thus its propensity for pain and oppression always lurks beneath it, sometimes on a simmer when a decent person sits on it, and sometimes erupting into a mad and fervent bubbling boil when a tyrant gains access to it. And thus the lesson that it is better to not have such thrones of power where some rule over and dictate the lives of others as you cannot guarantee that good, decent people will always sit on that throne and dethroning a tyrant is always costly and extremely difficult. Best not to erect the throne in the first place and keep that throne where it rightfully belongs, with the individual. But, erect the throne the Nephites did, and continue to feel its effects they would. Right now though, as of Helaman 3, thanks to a decent man occupying the throne of power, peace began to spread again throughout the land for the time being. There was much regulation in the land, i.e. teaching and getting the people to voluntarily live by the eternal laws of justice and non-aggression, whether in the secular sphere or in the church of Christ to come.
But this peace was not to last. As long as the throne of aggressive power existed, it would would always be a temptations for those who wished to rule tyrannically over others so as to enslave them and live off them as parasites. The prosperity of Helaman Chapter 3 resulting from the general peaceful living of the Nephites gave way to plenty, and plenty has a way of making people grow in pride and arrogance, prizing their possessions so much that they begin to see themselves as better than those who have less than they. And they begin to covet and love those possessions more than they love others to the point where they begin to treat others as inferiors and eventually begin to act aggressively toward them. Helaman 3-4 is basically the Book of Mormon’s version of “good times create weak men, and weak men created hard times,” known in the LDS world as “the pride cycle.” This is not to say that their riches and wealth caused them to turn back to tyranny. Riches and wealth, possessions and money are neutral tools used by humanity to act. Having them in and of themselves is not inherently problematic. Look at God. God has the entire universe, or at least part of it, at his disposal, to use at he pleases. God is in fact the wealthiest human being in existence as a result of the possessions he has. And yet, despite his unimaginable wealth, he acts according to the eternal laws of morality and non-aggression, freely choosing to use those possessions to help others, us, his children, his family, acting toward others in non-aggression, peace, and thus freedom. If he can do it, so we can we. But then juxtapose God with his eternal enemy, Satan, he who embodies all things in direct opposition to God and his qualities. Satan covets what God has, and seeks to steal it, even by murder, instead of working hard like God to achieve what God has. And then Satan., once he gains a little power as he supposes, begins to covet what he has and starts to see himself as better than others, letting pride and arrogance due to what he has slip into his head and being, to the point that it alters how he acts warts others. If this opposition occurs in divine and perfect worlds of God, it’ll also occur in the mortal, imperfect world of humanity. And happen it does. There are those who are incredibly blessed with much wealth and possessions who never turn to pride and do not begin to let their wealth become the sole desire of their hearts, to the point where they begin to see themselves as above and better than those who don’t have what they have. And then there are those who do let their wealth corrupt them. Some do, some don’t. It’s not the wealth, per se, but the person with it, and his/her heart that determines whether wealthy corrupts. Having wealth and striving for more of it, but not at the expense of other human beings is perfectly fine. But when that wealth and the choice and thus power it brings becomes the sole end goal of a person, to the point that they begin to harm and aggress against others in order to preserve it or gain more, then the wealth becomes a stumbling block and impediment to them. Take God himself as an example. As the creator of so much in the universe, having homesteaded what was needed from space to create what He has, and thus being legit owner of that matter used to create, God is the wealthiest being we know of. But, He is also God and thus a moral being who lives by the eternal moral principles of the universe, including non-aggression, and thus as the wealthiest being we know of, He is an example of how it is possible to be wealthy and not let it corrupt one’s soul and abandon morality.
…..TBC