Today has had me reflecting on the freedoms we enjoy. For those willing to permit me a story from a religious text, please read on. For those not interested, I bear no grudge and hope that to be mutual. This is not meant to be proselytizing. Rather, it is a moral story that I think bears close resemblance to the world in which we live today.
As many of you know, I am LDS--a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (AKA a "Mormon"). For those familiar with the faith, you probably know that in addition to the Bible, we read and accept as revealed scripture, a record called "The Book of Mormon." That book is a record of a people who fled Jerusalem and traveled to the Americas. From this group, two civilizations arose, the Nephites and the Lamanites, named after two of the sons of Lehi, the patriarch and prophet of the group.
After having been in the Americas for several hundred years under the reigns of kings, the last of the Nephite kings established a system best described as a judicial democracy--a government based on a series of judges, chosen by the voice of the people to make and enforce equitable laws in accordance with the will of the people. This king had reviewed for his people the problems of monarchy and aristocratic rule--a righteous king was a blessing to the people, but a wicked king laid burdens of taxes to support his unrighteousness. How much better, the king argued, for the people to be responsible for their destiny and fate. How much better to decide together a system of laws and punishments with which all could agree as equitable.
This reign of the judges was heartily embraced by the people who were initially fervent in their zeal to govern themselves rather than be subject to kings. This fervor lasted for about 20 years. After a major war with the Lamanites in which tens of thousands of men died on both sides, some began calling again for a king. One man came to the fore in seeking to be named ruler of the land.
His "flattering words" won many supporters, making me think: what must he have promised them to gain their support? What could possibly be so "flattering" so as to make a people WANT to reject self-governance, liberty, and freedom in favor of a man bound by no laws outside himself? More importantly, could a people today be similarly persuaded to willingly surrender their own freedoms and liberties to politicians who seek to lay aside the rule of law in favor of a modern "king?"
There were rich and poor among the Nephites, and in some areas, the sense of class identity was strong. There were also groups that began to identify primarily based on a shared lineage (Nephi was the leader of group of many families after his father passed away and a number of additional groups later assimilated with them). Moreover, the establishment of the judicial democracy had also created a class of professional politicians.
The leader of the men who wished to re-institute the monarchy--the man who would be king--was a man named Amalickiah. I suspect that he played on issues of financial concern, class, balkanization, and the lust for power. Ease, he promised. The complicated system of judges that required too much individual participation was bad--far better to simplify things. Wealth he promised too, to those who would support his rise--undoubtedly, this included wealth for the poor as well for which they would need not labor. Wealth, and positions of power and influence to his inner circle. With at least one constituency, the motivation was clear. Of Amalickiah's strongest supporters was recorded:
"...[T]hey were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were seeking for power. And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people." (Alma 46:4-5)
Whatever the lies and promises he made, Amalickiah's words were persuasive enough and enough people wanted to reinstate a monarchy, that the issue of naming him king was put to plebiscite. His effort failed and he eventually fled with his most loyal supporters to the Lamanites, where, through treachery, deceit, and murder, he eventually rose to be their king and came back to wage war against the Nephites in an effort to subjugate them.
This took place in such short order--the founding of a representative democracy and the willingness of a large number of people willing to abandon their liberty in favor of a return to an easier structure--one that required no labor on their part, no input, no concerns. The judicial democratic republic required active participation; it required men to shoulder responsibility for their liberties--they chose the laws, saw to their implementation, and elected righteous (or unrighteous) men to serve as representative rulers. If the system failed, it was their fault. If they chose well, that, too, produced the fruits of their actions.
Sadly, it appears that the nature of most men, when they get a little power or authority, is to seek to exercise greater control and/or compulsion over others. Equally sadly, it appears that many men are willing to be dominated--to have their freedoms, liberties, and agency stripped from them so long as the alternative provides a life of relative ease, or at least less responsibility. All this happened in the short space of just 20 years:
"Thus we see how quick the children of men do forget the Lord their God, yea, how quick to do iniquity, and to be led away by the evil one.' (Alma 46:9)
The leader of the Nephite armies was a man called Captain Moroni. He saw the apathy that had crept into the hearts of his people and threatened to rob them of the fragile democratic system their last king had so wisely implemented. Moroni saw the dangers inherent in slipping back into aristocratic complacency, for once power was ceded to a sovereign, the likelihood of that power ever returning peacefully to the people was infinitesimally small.
The prospect that his people would surrender that liberty that he held most precious to himself rent his soul with anguish, and in turn, Captain Moroni "rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.
And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren..." (Alma 46:12-13)
Captain Moroni then took that banner--"The Title of Liberty"--and marched from city to city, using what I can only guess was far more inspiring language than Amalickiah--coming as it did from a man who sought NO authority over his brethren, wanting only to preserve their liberty--to rally people to the cause of their own defense.
Moroni was ruler of the Nephite armies. He knew he would need to raise a large military to defend against the pending war he knew would result from Amalickiah's defection to the Lamanites--the sworn enemies of the Nephites. As head of the military, Moroni has the power and authority to conscript soldiers and force them to defend their land. However, it is interesting to me that Moroni's first and most powerful tool was not in the exercise of his authority, but in the inspiration of others to recall WHY they had established their freedoms; to remind them of all that they held dear and how their liberty allowed them to preserve that. Moroni's first act was to stir within his people a remembrance of their duty to participate in their own political process to safeguard their homes, lives, wives, children, freedom to worship, and the very agency that God had placed within them.
His words were far more powerful than any conscription edict. They inspired the Nephites to flock to his army and their own defense. He reminded them of what was worth fighting for and why. With that knowledge, the people again became involved. The political structure was reinvigorated, and the people, after many long, hard fought battles, were able to establish peace again in the land for a season.
The question I again raise is: "Have men changed that much in the past two thousand years?" It seems that this dram plays itself out over and over. Without men (or women) who raise the cry of "freedom and agency," and raise their own versions of "The Title of Liberty" how fast would we--our communities, our cities, or our nation--fall into the complacency of spirit that seeks the path of least resistance; that would allow us to willingly subjugate ourselves to men who desire only power and authority over us. Where are we as a nation in this cycle?
My gratitude goes out to every member of the Armed Forces that has, with valor and honor, served their country well. Those brave men and women who continually heed the call to defend "[their] God, [their] religion, and freedom, and [their] peace, [their] wives, and [their] children." Those men and women who, along with their families, make daily sacrifices--sometimes even the laying down of their own lives--to boldly proclaim their "Title of Liberty" wherever they may be--in uniform or out, active or retired. May we all heed that call. Not to suggest that every man and woman enter the Service, but that every man, woman, and child, might take up the responsibility for their government, for their individual agency, and ever defend and secure our freedoms and liberties against all who would seek to usurp it for their own power and gain. May we all, in whatever corner of the nation in which we stand, be Captain Moroni.
"Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, 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, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." (Alma 48: 17)
Happy Memorial Day
