[An audio version of this article can be played below.]
Benjamin Franklin said “There is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government.” (The Writings of Benjamin Franklin) I believe over the past 100 years we have seen such an inclination. Now we have arrived at the point where our leaders, instead of being subject to law, are above the law and create it as they go along. What is it about having an earthly king that is desirable by the natural man?
We see the same inclination in the Book of Mormon: “For behold, there were a part of the people who desired that a few particular points of the law should be altered…for they were desirous that the law should be altered in a manner to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land.” Those who opposed this action “had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government…now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.” (Alma 51)
There are likely two reasons this trend occurs. First, there are those who want power and authority over the people. Whether driven by pride, power, or money, there are those “elite” minded people that seek to overthrow freedom and establish themselves as rulers.
Second, there are those who don’t want to be responsible for governing themselves. Is it easier for a people to push the responsibilities of governing onto others? Do we as men feel that by giving so much power to the government we excuse ourselves from some level of accountability? Maybe we don’t have to work, or think, so hard if the king just tells us what to do. Such reasoning sounds like those who desired to come to earth without having to think and learn for themselves; those who wanted a guarantee, a free pass to celestial glory.
Individuals in the first category will appeal to people in the second category and eventually you have monarchy. Regardless of the reasons for this natural inclination, it is an incline down to submission and slavery.
When we think of kings, we may think of a man sitting on a high throne wearing a crown and long robe, saying “Off with his head!” The idea seems silly to us as Americans because we just can’t conceive of our leadership ever looking like that. Instead of this image, we should think of kings as what they ultimately are, a centralization of governing power. One man or a group of men with excess governing power. It may be easier for us as Americans to conceive of that, as we have some living examples.
Alma explained that the reason not to have a king is because we “shall not esteem one flesh above another” (Mosiah 23). There is no man on earth that should be our king, the Lord only shall assume that position. He says, “But, verily I say unto you that in time ye shall have no king nor ruler, for I will be your king and watch over you. Wherefore, hear my voice and follow me, and you shall be a free people, and ye shall have no laws but my laws when I come, for I am your lawgiver, and what can stay my hand?” (D&C 38).
We must restore God as the King of this land. Regardless of religion or race, our allegiance must be to Him and not man or man’s government. Until we do so, we shall not be a free people.
In the first chapters of the Book of Alma, we see the beginnings of the movement to establish a monarchy among the Nephites. You’ll recall that during the period covered in the Book of Mosiah, there were some migrations of various groups that made the Nephites a less homogeneous group. They encountered the Mulekites, who were descendants of the last king of Israel, Zedekiah. Let me string together some non-scholarly observations. Perhaps there are some experts in the scriptures who can help tie these speculations together someday.
The Mulekites had lost their language and their Jewish faith. They brought no records with them. They also had some contact with the last remnants of the Jaredites. You’ll note that their names were very different from the Nephite names–they’re very similar to Jaredite names.
When they merged back into a community of Israelites–the Nephites–they probably found some difficulty assimilating into their traditions and culture. They recalled that they were descendants of the royal family of Israel and perhaps they tried to assert that claim to “divine right.” Moroni later tells us that they also had the Jaredites had the secret oaths that were handed down from Cain. Perhaps it was the Mulekites who brought those into Nephite society.
We also learn that the first civil war that sought to overthrow the reign of judges established by King Mosiah was led by Amlici. Perhaps he was one of the “royals” trying to stake his claim.
Amlici also had religious motives. He was a follower of Nehor, the false religion among the Nephites that so closely resembles the practitioners of priestcraft today. It was a religion that preached “prosperity theology” and encouraged its members to measure God’s blessings by their material accomplishments. Joseph Smith, in our time, described the creeds of men as the “mainspring of corruption.” (see D&C 123:7)
Lust for power, wealth, influence, and elitism are the tools Satan uses to get power and exercise dominion over indivuals and society. One of the grand delusions begins when a good man starts to think “If only I could get elected, I could turn things around and make it better.”
Of all the things I’ve read on the subject regarding why not to have kings, I keep going back to Thomas Paine’s reasoning:
“But where some say is the king of America? I´ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”
Superb!
Steven,
I think Thomas Paine missed the mark on this issue. What is a law? It is merely a collection of words in a book of statutes. All laws must operate in harmony with a basic principle. In our case, the basic principle is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The US Constitution (contract with the states) was written to empower a central government to manage the affairs of the union and to protect our liberty. The law is not king. The principle it supports is.
Paul
Paul,
You entirely missed the point. Paine is talking about the author of law–God. God is both the author of law as inherent in the nature of things, natural law as well as Divine or revealed law. See: http://awurl.com/f869kIsGR
Steven,
God is not the author of law, divine or otherwise. The laws that He delivers are eternal laws that have always existed, long before our God achieved what is referred to as exaltation. During His mortal probation, He had to obey these eternal laws just as we do now. God is not the author of nature, the laws of physics, or the recipe for Masterpiece Hickory Flavored BBQ sauce. He’s not even the author of Free Agency. As you “should” know, this eternal principle predates Him and all the Gods before Him.
Paul
Okay Paul and Steve let’s get back to the article. But before I do that Paul are you saying Masterpiece Hickory Flavored BBQ predates God?
I am joking. Thank you both. I love you guys. Your comments are good. I am glad to see freedom loving people stand up for what they believe.
Ben Sutton good article. You touched lightly on a key fact.
You said,
Second, there are those who don’t want to be responsible for governing themselves.
Yes they are the 1/3 who chose to follow Lucifer’s plan, which is to give all the work of decision making to someone else. That destroys our agency even if we do it ourselves of our own free will. And if we are not careful we will fall for that plan in this life.
If we decide to have someone else make our moral choices for us we are choosing Satan’s plan. And it makes zero difference who the other is. The abdication of personal responsibility for making our own moral choices is a rejection of God’s two greatest gifts, our agency (which includes a time to exercise it free of instant penalty [probationary time]) and Christ’s atonement which makes that possible.
Again it doesn’t matter whom the person it that we give the power to make our choices. It can be a movie star, a politician, the most wonderful parent or beautiful spouse or even the prophets of God. That’s right our Father in heaven doesn’t even want us to have Him make our choices for us. Jesus did not abdicate His will. He chose to follow the Father’s will. If you don’t believe me try it some time. Just say to Heavenly Father in prayer, “I don’t want to make this choice. You do it for me. I don’t care what it is, you tell me what to do and I will do it.” and see how you feel, listen to what the Spirit replies. You know by reading this it is not God’s way. We do not please our Father when say all I have to do is do what ever that man or this group of men say.
The soldiers of the American revolution had a saying, “No king but king Jesus.” Let us not fall for Satan’s subtle but unchanging plan by setting up a king in our lives by choosing to just do whatever they say without studying it out in our minds, proving all things, praying for confirmation if it is from our one true King and on this basis alone make our choices.
PAJ (Paul) states:
In response to PAJ (Paul), I’ve written this:
http://ldsliberty.org/god-author-of-law/
Steven,
Yes, and I replied. :-)
Paul
Pingback: Ben Sutton Interview – King Men | LDS Liberty