Lesson 21: Alma Did Judge Righteous Judgments

Mosiah 29, Alma 1-4

Purpose: To help class members understand righteous principles of government and avoid priestcraft and pride.

Lesson Development:

1. Mosiah teaches principles of good government.
2. Alma the Younger serves as chief judge and combats priestcraft.
3. Amlici seeks to be king but is rejected by the voice of the people.
4. The Church prospers but becomes prideful. Alma resigns the judgment seat to devote himself to the ministry.

SCRIPTURE DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION

Early in 1910, a number of LDS missionaries in Germany were expelled from that country for having made themselves “obnoxious” to the government for teaching Mormonism. Banishments from Germany continued, and in July 1910, the president of the Church’s European Mission visited Berlin to investigate. The police raided the missionary meeting and arrested all of the American missionaries, including the European Mission president. After being held in jail for most of a day, they were all expelled from Germany and told not to return. By the end of the year, all non-native missionaries had been expelled from the country, and the Mission headquarters had to be transferred to Switzerland.

One week after the July expulsions, a member of the British Parliament brought up the issue of Mormonism when the Home Secretary, roughly equivalent to our Attorney General, visited the House of Commons to answer questions from the members. The MP asked the Home Secretary – a young man named Winston Churchill – whether he had heard about the expulsions of Mormon missionaries from Germany, and asked what steps the Home Secretary was taking to prevent meetings in England where missionaries could teach their false doctrines to English girls and women. Churchill said he had read accounts of the German expulsion, but he had no official notice as a government official. For the rest of 1910 and on into 1911, Churchill continued to answer questions from Parliament about Mormon activities in Great Britain. When MPs said that the Mormons were shipping thousands of young girls out of Great Britain every year, sending them to the harems of Utah, Churchill investigated every case he could identify – a tiny handful – where a girl or young woman had emigrated to Utah without her parents. When MPs complained that Mormon meetings encouraged polygamy and the elders taught other pernicious practices that would destroy the sanctity of English homes, Churchill sent policemen to attend meetings and collect tracts, to find out what the Mormons were actually teaching. When MPs demanded that Churchill expel the American missionaries just as Germany had, Churchill responded that the German police had a great many powers which English law did not permit, powers that Churchill had no intention of asking Parliament to grant him. In the end, Churchill determined that while Mormon beliefs might be repugnant, Mormon missionaries were not breaking any English laws, and no government action was justified.

Today we are going to discuss some principles of good government as laid out by Mosiah and Alma the Younger for the governing of the Nephite nation. In these lessons it is always too easy for us to lapse into the partisan politics of our own day – to assume that the Church supports one party or another, or that the policies proposed by one candidate or another are obviously backed by principles of the gospel, while policies of some other candidate are obviously reflective of Satan’s plan. We will get nowhere – we will learn nothing – if we fall into the trap of commenting on current affairs in this way, offending each other and making outrageous claims for our own political philosophy.

So I’m going to ask that you make no comments today about Republicans or Democrats, or about Trump or Clinton or any other candidate, nor about Muslims or LGBT people or immigration policies or any other hot-button political issue – not even in a veiled, sly, wink-wink kind of way. You are of course free to draw your own conclusions in relation to your own political philosophy, but in class today we need to talk about principles, not partisanship. That’s why I’ve told you a little about the Mormon/political situation in Germany and England in 1910 – we can use that situation as an illustration during our discussion, and of course we can also draw on the Nephite example, or other examples from scriptures.

Can we agree to that?

We have reached the end of the book of Mosiah. King Mosiah anticipates his death, and he wants to make arrangements for the government of his people after he is gone. Assuming that one of his four sons will become the king after Mosiah dies, Mosiah asks the people for their preference.

Mosiah 29:1-3

1 Now when Mosiah had done this he sent out throughout all the land, among all the people, desiring to know their will concerning who should be their king.

2 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: We are desirous that Aaron thy son should be our king and our ruler.

3 Now Aaron had gone up to the land of Nephi, therefore the king could not confer the kingdom upon him; neither would Aaron take upon him the kingdom; neither were any of the sons of Mosiah willing to take upon them the kingdom.

Mosiah has a problem – he is fearful that appointing someone else, other than his eldest son, as king will ultimately result in problems. What circumstances does he foresee, and why? What are the most important considerations to Mosiah?

Mosiah 29:7-10

7 And now if there should be another appointed in his stead, behold I fear there would rise contentions among you. And who knoweth but what my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry and draw 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.

8 Now I say unto you let us be wise and consider these things, for we have no right to destroy my son, neither should we have any right to destroy another if he should be appointed in his stead.

9 And if my son should turn again to his pride and vain things he would recall the things which he had said, and claim his right to the kingdom, which would cause him and also this people to commit much sin.

10 And now let us be wise and look forward to these things, and do that which will make for the peace of this people.

Let’s think for a moment about the context of Mosiah’s worries. First, none of his sons is willing to take the kingship – they are all serving as missionaries and find that work more important and more satisfactory than government.

Second, it hasn’t been very long since Alma the Elder and his people have returned to Zarahemla, with their history of what has happened in the Land of Nephi, with Noah and Abinadi and the priests of Noah and all the rest. Even if all of the kings in the Nephite line had been perfect, wonderful men, what kind of example of kingship does Alma the Elder report to him?

Mosiah 29:18

18 Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage.

And third, Limhi’s exploring company – the group that went back to the Land of Nephi and eventually found Alma’s people – bring him some metal plates they have found, which Mosiah translates through the gift and power of God.

Mosiah 28:17-19

17 Now after Mosiah had finished translating these records, behold, it gave an account of the people who were destroyed, from the time that they were destroyed back to the building of the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people and they were scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth, yea, and even from that time back until the creation of Adam.

18 Now this account did cause the people of Mosiah to mourn exceedingly, yea, they were filled with sorrow; nevertheless it gave them much knowledge, in the which they did rejoice.

19 And this account shall be written hereafter; for behold, it is expedient that all people should know the things which are written in this account.

This, of course, is included later in the Book of Mormon as the Book of Ether. What sort of lessons about kings did Mosiah read in that record?

Under what conditions might it be desirable or at least acceptable to have government by a king or queen? What about metaphors of the Kingdom of Heaven, and God or Jesus being our King? – would prophets use that metaphor if it were an entirely objectionable form of government? [for reference: among modern countries currently ruled by monarchy: Spain, Sweden, Norway, Thailand, Cambodia, Malta, Netherlands, Belgium, Tonga, many Arab countries, and the constitutional monarchies under Queen Elizabeth]

What sort of government does Mosiah propose instead of a kingdom?

25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws 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 voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people 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 if 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 judge 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.

Is this system a democracy like those we have become familiar with in the modern era? Why? Why not? [The voice of the people is heavily involved, but it is not a rule by democracy – see, for instance, this point where Alma, not the people, appoints his own successor, albeit with consent or perhaps even the suggestion of the people:]

Alma 4:16

16 And he selected a wise man who was among the elders of the church, and gave him power according to the voice of the people, that he might have power to enact laws according to the laws which had been given, and to put them in force according to the wickedness and the crimes of the people.

So the high priest and founder of the church Alma the Elder dies, and the king Mosiah dies, and the rule of the judges is instituted, with Alma the Younger serving as both the high priest of the church and, in a separate and distinct capacity, as chief judge of the people. Almost immediately something happens to put the new government to a test. A man named Nehor comes among the people and begins preaching a different kind of gospel. There seem to be two main tenets of Nehor’s new religion.

Alma 1:3-4

3 And he had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church; declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.

4 And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

So, according to Nehor, priests should be paid by the people, and everybody – the good, the bad, and the ugly – will eventually be saved. Those are both contrary – maybe even obnoxious – to the teachings of the church that Alma established. Is that a criminal offense under the law?

(Let’s go back to the history I told you at the beginning of the lesson – Germany banished the missionaries because the German police did not like the garbled version of the doctrine they thought the Mormon elders taught. In England, the government decided not to banish the missionaries – not because they liked Mormon doctrine any better than the Germans did, but because the missionaries had not done anything contrary to British law.) Did Alma put Nehor on trial for his beliefs only? What did Alma eventually try Nehor for? [Nehor murdered Gideon, who argued with Nehor about doctrine – Nehor was condemned for what he did which was against the law, not for what he believed which was protected by Nephite law.]

What do you think about that as a law – believe whatever you believe, and we won’t punish you, as long as you don’t act in such a way that you break a law? [Do you feel the same way about that when you think of yourself as a minority (as was the case in Germany and Great Britain in 1910) as you do when you think of yourself as a majority (as might be the case when you think of yourself as a Mormon in some contexts, or as a Christian, or white, or 10-generation American in some other contexts)? – Be careful about asking this, depending on whether class members have accepted the non-partisan challenge or whether they are trying to insert partisanship anyway.]

Putting Nehor to death for his murder did not end the church he had established.

Alma 1:16-17

16 Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.

17 Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.

Whose words are these? – who is the narrator? How in the world could Mormon possibly know that the followers of Nehor only pretended to believe what they taught? When Latter-day Saints talk about members, especially ministers or priests of other faiths, how often are we guilty of claims that such ministers aren’t sincere, that they only pretend to believe what they teach? [If necessary, tell the class of my experience and explain that this is largely why I insist we talk only about ourselves and not about “those other people.”]

What else did the followers of Nehor do?

Alma 1:19-20

19 But it came to pass that whosoever did not belong to the church of God began to persecute those that did belong to the church of God, and had taken upon them the name of Christ.

20 Yea, they did persecute them, and afflict them with all manner of words, and this because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes, and because they did impart the word of God, one with another, without money and without price.

What did that say? What did they do to persecute the members of the Church? They used words. How does that strike you as a form of persecution?

** Do you think the Lord intends us to adopt our principles of civil government from the models of people in the scriptures? [If the class answers “yes,” ask which form, then – king or judge – the Lord prefers; if “no,” ask what is the point, then, of including these accounts in the scriptures?

** How about the war stories that are coming up soon in the Book of Alma? – does the Lord expect us to adopt them as our models of military strategy and national defense? Why might they, then, be included in the scriptures?

[I’m hoping to draw out the acknowledgment for future lessons that these are not necessarily models for our own behavior, but opportunities to see how various ideas played out in Nephite civilization. After all, Nephite government – even led as it often was by righteous men – was not successful in creating peace, safety, or righteousness among the people for very long at a time, and eventually the civilization failed in a spectacular way. It is the principles of the gospel taught in the scriptures, not the social, military, or other systems that are modeled by Nephite civilization, that we need to adopt.]

***

[This might be useful to have at the ready, for use at any point:

Are members of the Church who are citizens of Canada or Argentina or Mongolia required to believe in and uphold the U.S. Constitution [or some other American custom or cultural or political idea suggested by a class member]? Can an idea that is not applicable to Latter-day Saints throughout the world be doctrinal? If not doctrinal, what label or classification would you put on this kind of idea?]