In recent years, Mesoamerican archaeologists have directed their attention with increasing concern to evidence that might explain the strange and sudden demise of the great ancient American centers of civilization that left behind those imposing ruins “abandoned by unknown builders at an unknown time for unknown reasons.” In attempting to get at the root of the matter the experts have, it would seem at present, come to some sort of consensus or convergence of ideas favoring one explanation over all the others. While not excluding the roles played by the upheavals of nature, disease, change of climate, depletion of resources, and so on, the specialists now conclude that the primary reason for the rapid decline and fall of those civilizations, far outweighing the rest, was the pressure brought to bear by one segment of the population, which they designate as “the elite,” on another, which they call “the commoners.” This matches the tales told in the pre-Columbian literary accounts transmitted and translated by the European Conquistadors of the sixteenth century, with their repeated reference to the tragic confrontations between “los señores” and “la gente comun.” The theme is not confined to one area of Middle America nor to any one period of time; it is, in fact, one of the constants of history. And so it is not going out of bounds to recall the long and exciting account in the Book of Mormon of the rivalry between the “king-men” and the “freemen” and what it led to.
As a completely self-consistent and convincing story, the epic tale of the “freemen” stands on its own feet; but the new double-check of ancient evidence plus modern relevance now invites us to examine it more closely and take it to heart more seriously than ever before. We cannot do better than to let the Book of Mormon tell the story in its own powerful and moving prose, leading off with the basic question:
Q. Who were the freemen?
A. The term is first used in the Book of Mormon to designate the people who supported the government of the Nephites, around 67 B.C., during a political crisis: “And those who were desirous that [the newly elected] Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of freemen” (Alma 51:6).
Wow. That is so reverent to our day. But I have a small criticism of Nibley’s otherwise excellent Q&A essay. He deliberately neglects to mention how Korihor was smitten mute & deaf before he was later trampled to death by the Zoramites. Nibley infers Korihor suffered the consequences of preaching his tainted philosophy, rather than being killed for being a homeless beggar.
[i]“A. Poetic justice caught up with him. Uncomfortable among the Nephites, he sought out a community of certain dissenters who were as proud and independent as himself, people who had separated themselves from the Nephites and called themselves Zoramites after their leader. There, Korihor was killed by a mob (Alma 30:59).[/i]
I understand his point that there is no honor among thieves or liars who follow the devil’s plan, but if Korihor had the ability to speak and hear, he no doubt would have wormed himself into Zoramites society, and not died a ignominious death. Nibley seems to have sacrificed mentioning this miraculous punishment in order to support his otherwise thesis on the difference of Freemen and Kingmen.
This is one of those classic articles by Dr. Nibley on the Book of Mormon. As he points out in other writings, it is a theme that starts in the beginning chapters and runs through to the end of the book as it recounts the downfall of society. Thank you for posting this – see also Polarization in the Book of Mormon.