In Sunday School a few weeks ago, we reviewed the first few chapters of Helaman. As I was doing my personal scripture study to prepare, it all seemed to be about politics to me. Perhaps it is just that politics is on my mind right now, but given that the study guide tells us to "Look for parallels to our day", I thought (from a non-partisan point of view), I would note key scriptures and some of the insight I gained from them. Perhaps others would like to add insight. (And I apologize if this is "old news" to some. We aren't all fluent in church doctrine. [wink]) This is clearly a Presidential election (or "Chief Judge" as they call it in the Book of Mormon). Three candidates with the population split into parties according to the candidate they support. Seeing as how divided we are as a nation, and how deep the differences seem to go, is it feasible that instead of accepting the outcome of the election, the "losing" side will rise up in rebellion? I'd like to think that it wouldn't happen in America, but I do believe that the culture war is real and that there are fundamentally different trains of thought. Do we respect our nation enough to accept the outcome of the election, or will we rebel? In all of my readings of the BofM, I had never caught on that the Gadianton robbers had been formed because of politics - because someone from the losing side killed the "President" and they all combined to protect him. Do we have secret combinations at work in our government? Hmm. Are we too caught up in our political campaigns and disagreements to keep watch on our nation? Are we at risk? Is this what happened with 9-11, or is it waiting to happen? Isn't that what it always comes down to? Power? Political favors? How many people out there campaigning for one side or the other actually have the best interests of the American people at heart, and how many are just seeking for power? How many politicians are willing to sell us out just for a little power and authority over us? Isn't this the crux of it? The secret combinations are what ultimately destroyed the Nephites, and they got started because of politics. Doesn't that kind of put politics into a whole new perspective? What are our politics doing to us? In the Book of Mormon, it is always the dissenters who stir up the enemy to anger. Do we have dissenters among us? Who is our enemy? Are our dissenters stirring the enemy up? It seems to me that American leaders who travel to other countries and badmouth our citizens, President, leaders are stirring something up. Honestly, I can see a lot of sin going on in both parties. Are our laws being corrupted? I wonder what this means for free trade and open borders? Could this be a parallel to the United States and Mexico? Or to North America and South America? Doesn't this describe the state of the U.S. to a "T"? (or at least before the past few years?) I think this may be one of the verses that scares me the most. So, the secret combination was formed by a political party that lost, and the leader was supported by people who wanted to gain power and authority. Now, we know that most of the Nephites united with the robbers to support each other in murder and stealing. Verses 21-22 say that Which brings us to the final verse I will cite today: So, is this coming? Or has it happened? What are your thoughts? Part of the reason I love a site where we can combine politics and Mormonism is that the Book of Mormon is relevant to the discussion! As the cornerstone of our religion, it brings us together. What can we learn that will help us as we elect our leaders and vote for propositions? What other parallels do you draw between the Book of Mormon and our day with regard to politics?Helaman 1:3 Now these are their names who did contend for the judgement-seat, who did also cause the people to contend: Pahoran, Paanchi, and Pacumeni.
Helaman 1:7 [after Pahoran was elected by the voice of the people] But behold, Paanchi, and that part of the people that were desirous that he should be their governor, was exceedingly wroth; therefore, he was about to flatter away those people to rise up in rebellion against their brethren.
Helaman 1:11 And he went unto those that sent him, and they all entered into a covenant, yea, swearing by their everlasting Maker, that they would tell no man that Kishkumen had murdered Pahoran.
Helaman 1:18 And it came to pass that because of so much contention and so much difficulty in the government, that they had not kept sufficient guards in the land of Zarahemla; for they had supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the heart of their lands to attack that great city Zarahemla.
Helaman 2:5 Therefore he did flatter them, and also Kishkumen, that if they would place him in the judgement-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.
Helaman 2:13 And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.
Helaman 4:4 But it came to pass in the fifty and sixth year of the reign of the judges, there were dissenters who went up from the Nephites unto the Lamanites; and they succeeded with those others in stirring them up to anger against the Nephites; and they were all that year preparing for war.
Helaman 4:11 tells us that the slaughter among the Nephites was because of "their wickedness and their abominations", even among those who "professed to belong to the church of God". So what were their sins? See if you recognize any of these sins in America today: (Helaman 4:12)
exceeding richesHelaman 4:22 And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted . . .
Helaman 6:8 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire.
Helaman 6: 9 And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceedingly plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north.
6:11 And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich.Helaman 6:17 For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to ward, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain.
Helaman 6: 21 But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed, that they should not suffer for their murders, and their plunderings, and their stealings.
they had become exceedingly wicked; yea, the more part of them had turned out of the way of righteousness, and did trample under their feet the commandments of God, and did turn unto their own ways, and did build up unto themselves idols of their gold and their silver. And it came to pass that all these iniquities did come unto them in the space of not many years . . .
Helaman 6:39 And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.
Politics in the Book of Mormon
Posted by Stephanie on 9/19/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Interesting post. I would point out that the typical secular/scholarly reading of the Book of Helaman (especially the stuff about the Gadianton robbers) is that it's based in part on Joseph Smith's knowledge of the so-called Morgan Affair of 1827-1828, a hot controversy of the time, in which the Masons were accused of murdering someone and the Democrats (IIRC) worried that the controversy would result in Andrew Jackson (a high-ranking Mason) losing the upcoming election. The parallels are covered well on pp. 64-66 of No Man Knows My History, which I would advise anyone here to read if they haven't already.
I'd also like to suggest that we think of politics as the way people hash out and resolve their differences without resorting to war. War is what happens when politics fails. The problem we face is not politics, it's the fact that we have differences. I'll draw an analogy: Think of people with bacterial pneumonia who are prescribed antibiotics. In most cases, the antibiotics will suffice to cure the patient. But in some cases they won't and the patient will have to be hospitalized. In such cases we don't blame the hospitalization on the fact that the patient was taking antibiotics; we blame it on the fact that the patient had a case of pneumonia too stubborn to be cured by antibiotics. Saying that politics leads to war is a bit like saying that antibiotics lead to hospitalization.
Like antibiotics, politics is basically a good thing (though of course, like antibiotics, politics can have some unpleasant side-effects).
The problem is not politics but difference. Difference is the problem and politics is the solution, even if politics sometimes fails. And in a world where differences are inevitable, I say thank goodness we have politics, so that war is not our only alternative.
I definitely have to disagree with this statement: "It is always the dissenters who stir up the enemy to anger." Always? That just ain't so. Sometimes it's the establishment, not the dissenters, who stir up the enemy. It wasn't dissenters who provoked the Germans into sinking the Lusitania; it was the U.S. government's decision to put armaments aboard that ship. It wasn't "dissenters" who stirred up Al Qaeda to anger; it was our Middle East policy, and our freedoms in general (especially, as I understand it, the freedom of our women to do horrible things like appear in public with their ankles showing and their hair uncovered).
And I wouldn't read Helaman and conclude that "dissenters" are a problem. Dissent is generally a good thing. Dissenters per se are not a problem, only dissenters who go beyond dissent to the fomenting of violence and revolution--just as Mormons per se are not a problem, only Mormons who happen to go beyond the expressing of their faith to (say) the massacring of wagon trains.
And yes, dissent as such is a good thing. That's why the Founding Fathers so clearly protected our right to dissent.
So when Stephanie asks, "Do we have dissenters among us?" I answer: Of course we do--and thank goodness!
Stephanie also asks, "Who is our enemy? Are our dissenters stirring the enemy up?" I answer (trying to restrain my anger at her question's implicit authoritarianism): Our enemies are Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and Russia, etc. And no, our dissenters are definitely NOT "stirring them up." To claim that they are is an irresponsible way of demonizing one's political opponents.
Stephanie also asks, "What other parallels do you draw between the Book of Mormon and our day with regard to politics?" I answer: In his own day, Isaiah was a "dissenter." It was Isaiah who was "badmouthing" his country. By quoting so frequently from the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Mormon reminds us that sometimes it's the government that's corrupt and the dissenters who are the good guys.
How can you tell when the dissenters are right and the government wrong, and vice-versa? Not by mechanically applying Helaman to the present and saying "country good, dissenters bad"--it's going to require the exercise of a bit more judgment than that.
--David
Anon David, when I said "It is always the dissenters who stir up the enemy to anger", I was specifically referring to the context of the Book of Mormon. In the BofM, over and over again, the dissenters from the Nephites go to the Lamanites to stir them up to anger. The reason is usually that the dissenters want some kind of power and can't get it, so they use the Lamanites to attack the Nephites to either 1. bring the Nephites into bondage or 2. destroy the Nephites. The closest synonym I can think of in this context to dissenter is traitor.
I can see why you thought I was making a blanket statement with that. I'll go back and edit the post.
Anon David, wouldn't that "scholarly" reading of the BofM imply that the book was written by Joseph Smith, not translated? Wikipedia says of the book that Brodie presents the young Joseph Smith as a good-natured, lazy, extroverted, and unsuccessful treasure seeker, who, in an attempt to improve his family's fortunes, first developed the notion of golden plates and then the concept of a religious novel, the Book of Mormon.
Somehow I don't think that would be at all helpful in helping me to understand what the Lord is trying to tell me about my day through the Book of Mormon.
Hello Everyone! Slight study break here. How can I pass up the opportunity to comment on this post?
1. Great job Steph! I think that people who have never read the Book of Mormon might be surprised to see that its full of politics and political consequences---not just "typical" or expected doctrine.
2. I would argue that we already see Secret Combinations in our society in the form of gangs. Don't people avoid certain neighborhoods or territories wherever they might live because of gang activity? And gang members don't rat each other out. So perhaps a better question would be, is the colloquial organizations formed at the bottom of our society's social ladder representative of the formal organizations at the top?
3. I don't personally think that our society is quite at the point to split into factions because of a disagreement, political or otherwise. Recall the uniformity of American citizens' reaction to 9/11...just 7 years ago. Suddenly we weren't Republican, Democrat, Jew, LDS, Italian, Mexican, etc. We were American. However, 10 years from now another generation of Americans will be mature and I have no idea what their reactions to national contention will be. So maybe then I will believe it to be more plausible. But this election? I think each side is prepared to accept the outcome, come what may.
Of course, these are just my own personal opinions.
I have read "No Man Knows My History" and I do not recommend it.
But I do recommend readig this article by Ann Coulter -
http://www.anncoulter.com/
It is entitled OBAMA: LUCIFER IS MY HOMEBOY
It contains a quote about who was the first dissenter.
Vicki
Thanks for the clarification, Stephanie re the use of "dissenters." Of course, I still find the BofM's understanding of politics extremely simplistic in this regard--a reflection of Joseph Smith's limited understanding of such things (not to mention his shortcomings as a writer). Compare the BofM's simplistic, binary understanding of politics to the much more realistic and sophisticated depiction of politics in the King David story. Note how in the Bathsheba episode of the latter story, it is the government, the God-beloved monarch David, who is wrong and the dissenter Nathan who is right. Note how the split that leads to civil war cannot be boiled down to anything like the simplistic formula that Smith uses over and over in the BofM. (Frankly, the BofM is so inferior to the OT and NT in so many different ways, I'm surprised anyone turns to it for spiritual guidance at all. Unless its simplicity is what people find attractive....)
And yes, of course I (and other secular BofM scholars) see Joseph Smith as the author of the book. If we didn't, we'd be Mormons.
When you write that you don't think reading No Man Knows My History "would be at all helpful in helping me to understand what the Lord is trying to tell me about my day through the Book of Mormon," are you suggesting there's no point in understanding the arguments of (dare I say it) dissenters? I would definitely disagree with that. When it comes to fundamental beliefs, just like automobiles or television screens, the more one knows about one's options, the more free one's choices really are. I've read both the Mormon scriptures (and much else that Smith wrote) and NMKMH. Heck, I've even read Ann Coulter.
Remember the basic notion of the "liberal arts education"? The "liberal" comes from liber or "free," because to be free, and to properly use one's freedom, requires knowledge of options. Those who exercise their agency in an information vacuum (such as the one churches try to maintain by discourage the reading of books that are not "faith promoting") are not in this important sense free people at all. Nor are their churches promoting freedom.
There's also the fact that NMKMH is an just an excellent biography--well researched, lively in its writing, and, yes, bold in its arguments about who Smith really was. He really was a treasure seeker, and he obviously did write the BofM. I certainly don't think he was lazy, though, and I don't recall that Brodie ever said he was. Like a lot of other secular scholars, I completely disagree with Brodie's psychological explanation of Smith's actions, but I have to respect the basic integrity of her research. On almost all the major controversial points, Brodie has been vindicated by later Mormon biographers of Smith, such as Richard Bushman.
As for Vicki--I'll have to remember to keep my hat on so she doesn't see my horns.
--David
Anon David, I know that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. He translated it. It was written by Mormon, Nephi, etc. So, really, understanding anything about the context of Joseph Smith's life would not be helpful in gaining insight from the Book of Mormon (the Doctrine & Covenants, yes -because a lot of the revelations were given as answers to Joseph Smith's questions- the BofM, no. He merely translated it. Understanding the context of the lives of the Nephites would help me, and that it what I am trying to do.
That's not to say that other books aren't helpful or valuable. Just that the book you are recommending talks about Joseph Smith, and I don't think it is necessary to know about the events going on in his life to understand the Book of Mormon.
Considering that we consider the OT, NT, BofM, D&C AND Pearl of Great Price to be doctrinal scripture, we find value in all of them, particularly in the BofM. It was written for US, for our time, to help us navigate these last days. My insights and interpretations are my own. That's why I am asking for the insights of others. I am interested to see what other Mormons get out of it (regarding politics) and how they feel it applies to our time.
I'll have to remember to keep my hat on so she doesn't see my horns.
Funny, we say the same thing. ;)
Ah, but I'd argue with that, Stephanie - I think understanding Joseph's way of thinking is helpful in understanding the Book of Mormon - I have read NMKNH, and I think there is some value to it - I don't find it flawless - and I even find some obvious biases in numerous places, and I think that there are some places where she is just flat out wrong. But I find some value to it for certian.
I've also got a little bit of elementary experience translating documents from their ancient language to modern english. I can tell you that from the little bit that I've done, I've been tempted to color my translations in a way that they reflect highly my political or religious or cultural understanding - I don't think thats wrong or dishonest, but that's what happens when ancient texts are viewed through a modern filter - so, yes - I think that some of Joseph Smith's cultural, religious, or political understandings - or misunderstandings - could have worked their way into the BOM - - However, I don' thtink this was necissarily the case with the Morgan Affair. But I think that is very clearly the case with his, as David said, "flaws as a writer" or, in this case, IMO, translator.
Rick, remember the situation when NMKMH came out in 1947. Non-Mormons knew either nothing about Smith, or they knew what they'd learned through the anti-Mormon grapevine. And Mormons, unless for some reason they'd been exposed to the work of B.H. Roberts (esp. on the BofM's relations to View of the Hebrews), largely knew only the whitewashed "faith-building" line of the Church. Though flawed, Brodie's was the first really independent and scholarly look at Smith. Today, scholars nitpick at her errors, and of course orthodox Mormons gripe about her airing of Smith's flaws--but at the time her book actually elevated the discourse on Mormonism considerably. Brodie may well have paved the way for serious work by later Mormon and ex-Mormon writers, such Juanita Brooks's 1950 book on Mountain Meadows. The Church was not happy with Brooks, and even though she caught some flack for her work she wasn't excommunicated--partly because she just didn't seem that bad in comparison to the apostate Brodie. I would think that without Roberts, Brodie, and Brooks there'd be no Dialogue, no Sunstone, no space between the Church, on the one hand, and Lighthouse Ministries on the other, for independent Mormon thought. And without that space, the LDS Church might be in the insular position of Scientology or the Jehovah's Witnesses.
--David
Okay, Rick, fair enough. What insights do you gain in reading Helaman 1-6 about our day?
Stephanie, Thank you for this post. I enjoyed it being a simpleton like Joseph Smith, Maybe I could even write a cool story since I like to look for treasures too:)
I think that maybe God knew that the majority of people weren't going to be scholars (thank goodness:)and therefore wanted people to be able to understand things in a somewhat simple way. Most of the BofM is quite simplistic because it really is just reminder after reminder as the natural man is easily enticed.
I can see many of the events in the BofM likened to our day. Unfortunately I think we are getting closer to Helamen 1:7. There is increasingly more hatred for opposite parties.
Last night I watched MSNBC's Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. My wife and I couldn't believe how much hatred they have for anything GOP (and of course portray Obama as flawless). At least extremists like Glenn Beck have enough common sense to say how screwed up both parties are and not just point finger at the other side.
I wont be surprised if this election brings out more hostility than any other in recent history, from both sides by the way. If Obama loses I could see rodney king style riots. If Obama wins, well lets just say there are still quite a few hard core racists. I hope for the best but the way everything is heading I wouldn't be surprised by much.
I agree with David that politics
are supposed to be the solution to our differences, but unfortunately as Americans belief systems grow further and further apart it will grow increasingly more difficult to mend the differences. The end is coming sooner than later right?
So, Stephanie, I'd like to respond to your post (since my previous response was about a tangent we'd gotten on). I have a very hard time comparing Book of Mormon politics with US politics - mostly because the book of Mormon is describing tribal politics (quite accurately, I might add) of a few tribes based in southern Mexico and Guatamala, rather than national and INTERNATIONAL politics. That being said, I do think that there are things we can learn about our own political system by doing what you have done - and that is comparison - but remember that there has to be breakdown in comparisons - because truely we are comparing apples and oranges. Or, maybe more appropriate, apples and the US fruit production industry. So, here's what I think.
1) What you and Matt and some others have said about deep seated divisions seems valid and called for - especially at this stage in the game. It is good to remember that there are still racisms both directions in the US, and we are in for a rocky ride - no matter who wins.
2)Gaddianton and Secret Combinations - this, in my perception of things, is the US government - the gaddianton robbers have already infultrated and taken over the government - we have agencies who's purpose is to find out and dig up information to use as blackmail. Cohersive tactics, subverting the law in SO many instances, chief executives who don't bother to council with their legal peers, but instead "gun it" on their own advice and the flawed advice of their patsy friends - political favors, INTREST GROUPS, LOBBYISTS!!! - you name it - our government is a state of Gaddianton government - and has been for a long time - look at McCarthyism and tell me it isn't. Gangs don't really line up with Gaddianton, IMO, because what gangs really are, Amy, is troubled teens trying to make sense of their world and playing war games left over in their collective psyche from a traumatic shared past. That coupled with the drug industry.
3)Your analysis of Helaman 4:12 is really good. If you don't mind, I'll quote that scripture in my next blog. Stephanie, as always, your blogs get me thinking - and they tend to get me feeling all soap-boxy - I like feeling sudzy, so hopefully I'll have a scathing post up sometime tonight. Thanks for being all thought provoking.
Matt, Rick, Stephanie--our differences today are not as bad as all that. Compare them to the differences that tore the country apart in the 1850s, differences that led to secession and horrific warfare, or even those of the 1960s, which led to riots and bombings and shootings.... Read some 19th-century newspapers sometime. Back then, many newspapers were flat-out owned by political parties and made no pretenses to fairness or objectivity at all. They make today's political discourse seem quite civil.
There's always this tendency to think of our own day as the worst of times, when we're talking politics, at least. But it just ain't so.
--David
Hi, I thought I'd chime in here. My take on the chapters in question is as follows:
I can't draw many parallels as far as assasinations go, but one thing is certain
The Gadiantons formed a secret society with the intent to get power,gain and go unpunished for their whoredoms etc.
This later proved the reason for almost entire destruction of the Nephite civilization as the Lord Himself later affirmed in 3Ne 9:9
And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.
So this secret combination is a wickedness which is above all other wickedness. The reason for that might be that such Combinations (or conspiracies) deprive humans of their lives wholesale and cause immense suffering through instigating wars etc.
Now the parallel to me is clear, today the US government is infiltrated by such Gadiantons who manipulate/or are themselves members of the The Congress, The office of the Secretary of state, the White House as well as on States level. They seek to get power by (among myriads of others) passing laws like The Patriot Act which allows them to arbitrarily publish those who resist them, the seek to get gain by provoking wars while at the same time being shareholders in the likes of General Motors (one of the biggest US military contractor) or establishing the Federal Reserve Bank which devalues the currency, they seek to go unpunished for the whoredoms - like having prostitutes and/or engaging in various perversive activities.
It occurs to me that the Nephites were toast until they had leaders who recognized that conspiracies exist and were willing to act against them. In my opinion, both "big box" parties as well as most Americans, refuse to acknowledge than there is a group trying to take over our government. As long as that is the case, the Gadiantons win.
Post a Comment