The Churning for Power

My recent methodology focuses less on parallels and how they prove the Book of Mormon. We don’t necessarily have to point to a direct connection between Rome, China and the people of the Book of Mormon because the underlying behavior, motivations and feelings are so similar.

I’ve talked about many principles between the Jaredite and Chinese Civil War in my first book. In this case, I was particularly impressed with the jealousy of the Roman empress regent against powerful generals and how those generals held key commands around Roman territory. The power struggle between generals, politicians, and priests using the levers of the state or their personal commands to protect their own power against rivals aided by assassination. Aetius also had to recover from defeat which recalled the similar effort by Coriantumr. These scrums for power place the Book of Mormon firmly in ancient settings.

We might consider how chaos in both China and Rome allowed associated barbarian groups to enter and seize control. One Chinese source said they “picked the bone of the dynasty.” Aetius used his time as a hostage to the Huns to use them as allies against his enemies. This presents an intriguingly possibility concerning others in the Book of the Mormon. The Jaredite fight for power among themselves and crush for manpower could have led to unconventional alliances or allowed nonaffiliated groups to expand their power. In fact, the Mulekites could be some of those outsiders. They were too late to affect the twilight wars of the Jaredites (though the account says Coriantumr lived with the people of Zarahemla for 9 months.)  But they entered the Jaredite (possibly San Lorenzo) culture zone and soon created their own mix aristocracy and control of nearby regions.

The more I read ancient accounts and documents the more firmly I’m convinced of its ancient setting. Without further ado here are the three summaries of the churning for power in ancient society. If you get lost trying to keep track of all the power players, don't worry, that is kind of the point.

China: 

After a period of disunion, romantically called the “Three Kingdoms Period,”¹ Sima Yan united China and proclaimed the beginning of the Jin Dynasty in the mid-3^rd century A.D. Sima Yan placed his relatives in strong military commands surrounding the capital of Luoyang on the Yellow river.²  As is typically the case in Chinese history, however, commanders capable enough to protect the frontier were also powerful enough to assert their will against the Emperor.  It took a strong Emperor at the center to hold these ambitious commanders in check. 

Upon the death of Sima Yan in 290 A.D, his mentally feeble son Sima Zhong assumed the throne.  His wife, the Empress Jia, suppressed, executed or ran off members of the Sima clan, and effectively ruled until 300 A.D.  After the murder of the Sima Yu, the various Princes stationed along the periphery asserted their will in favor of the Imperial (Sima) clan.  Two Princes, Sima Yong and Sima Lun, violently seized power in the capital and forced the Empress to commit suicide.

Up until this point, the various political machinations had been done under the façade of Imperial authority.  The Empress signed an edict in the name of her feeble husband, and then executed or exiled the various “traitors” to the Empire.  The naked use of power without a justifying edict by the Sima brothers led to what historian David Graff calls a “plunge into the abyss.”³  Members of the Sima clan justified their actions based on assertions of military power, and not Imperial authority. 

Less than a year after the two Simas coup, a third, Sima Yun, attempted a coup but was killed.  In response, Sima Lun abandoned all pretenses of ruling through his feeble cousin and declared himself Emperor.⁴  Yet this caused the former Emperor’s younger brothers (Sima Ying, Sima Yih, and an area commander Sima Jiong) to attack from the West. They defeated the new Emperor and restored their mentally challenged brother to the throne. 

With the unremitting carnage among the princes in their struggles for power, by May of 302 A.D., no clear heirs remained to the (recently restored) Jin Emperor. Sima Ying hoped for the nomination, and he resented the dominant position taken by the more distant relative Sima Jiong, while Sima Yung from the west also sought a role. In complex intrigue during the last days of the Chinese year [heading into 303 A.D.], Sima Ying and Sima Yung involved Sima Yih in their rivalry with Sima Jiong, but when Sima Jiong sought to destroy Sima Yih, Sima Yih turned the tables on him and took his place at the head of government...⁵

After heavy fighting, Sima Yih defeated Sima Ying’s forces and held off another army from Sima Yung, commanded by the vigorous general Zhang Fang.  However, Sima Yih was betrayed by his own soldiers, under the influence of Sima Yue.  In 304 A.D., the latter had the former burned at the stake, and he continued his efforts to gain control over the Emperor.  Sima Yue’s enemy, Sima Yung, tried to appease him by offering the head of his general Zhang Fang.  Sima Yue accepted the head but continued the fight to gain control of the government. He accomplished his design in 306 A.D.  

Jaredite:

The Jaredite Civil War is no less sanguine, complicated, or less known by the public at large. Ending in roughly 300 B.C.,⁶ the historian Moroni summarized Ether’s account.⁷ The final war begins with the latter’s eviction from the rulers’ court. At this point, many “mighty men” fight Coriantumr.  Knowing “all the arts of war” (Ether 13:16), Coriantumr fights back for three years before being put into captivity by Shared.  His sons promptly rescue him and restore him to the throne. This naked aggression seems to throw the kingdom into continual bloodshed, as there was “none to restrain them” (Ether 13:31).  A “curse” upon the land corresponds to this bloodshed. It is manifested by a complete lack of trade and a shredding of the Jaredite economy.

Shared and Coriantumr continue their back and forth fight and exchange victories across the land until the latter kills the former.  Shared’s brother, Gilead, beats Coriantumr in a series of battles and assumes the throne.  Then Gilead’s high priest murdered him as he sits upon the throne.  The text is a bit unclear, but this high priest is either Lib, or killed by Lib so that he can take the throne (Ether 14:10).⁸  Renewed from his defeat and succored by what appears to be a regional power base, Coriantumr regains the throne and kills Lib (or the man who killed Lib).  By this point, the armies are forcibly conscripting soldiers and destroying large populations and cities in their path. Lib’s brother, Shiz, continues the fight, despite peace overtures from Coriantumr, until the nation ceases to exist in any organized form.⁹ 

Roman:10

A six year old boy cannot rule an empire, even in the hands of so capable and experience a mother as Galla Placidia….The fragmentary records indicate that she aimed to sustain a balance of power in which no one figure among the military or bureaucratic elite should become too dominant. The main contenders for power and influence in the years after 425 were the leaders of the three main western army groups: Felix [Italy], Aetius [Gaul], and Boniface [North Africa]…

For awhile, Placidia’s strategy just about worked. The threatened dominance of first one figure, then another, was kept in check, if not entirely smoothly. Slowly, however, the situation fell out of the Augusta’s control. Felix made the first move. Accusing Boniface of disloyalty, in 427 he ordered him to return to Italy. When he refused, Felix sent forces to North Africa, but they were defeated. Then Aetius stepped in. On the strength of some military successes in Gaul against Visigoths (426) and Franks (428)…he felt confident enough to move against Felix. Perhaps his successes had won him new favor with Placidia, or perhaps personal extinction was the price of Felix’s failure against Bonficace, but in 429 Aetius was transferred to Italy and to the post of junior central field army general…In May 430 Aeitus had Felix and his wife arrested for plotting against him. They were executed at Ravenna. Three had become two, and high noon was fast approaching for Boniface.

Aetius seems to have lost little ground at court after he got rid of Felix. Perhaps, one again, Placidia was fearful of the dominance of one unchallenged generalissimo. Boniface was therefore recalled to the Italy, seemingly while Aetius was absent in Gaul again; and Boniface too was promoted to the post of central field army general. Aetius immediately marched to Italy with an army, and met Boniface in battle near Rimini. Boniface was victorious but also mortally wounded; he died soon afterwards. His political position, and the struggle with Aetius, were immediately taken up by his son in law Sebastianus. After the defeat, Aetius first retreated to his country estates, but after an attempt was made on his life, he turned to the Huns, as he had in 425. In 433 he returned to Italy with enough Hunnic reinforcements to make Sebastianus’ position untenable…Aetius had emerged by the end of 433 as the de facto ruler of the western Empire.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author and providing high quality ad free research takes time and effort. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buying one of my books using the link in the top left. Thanks again. 

**********

---

1 This period is similar in legend and romance to that of Arthurian Britain. 

2  See Appendix B in my book a map of Jin Provinces.

3  David Graff, Medieval Chinese Warfare: 300-900 (New York: Routledge Press, 2002), 62.

4  Edward Dreyer, "Military Aspects of the War of the Eight Princes, 301-307," in Military Culture in Imperial China,  ed. Nicola di Cosmo, 112-142 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009).

5  Rafe de Crespigny, “The Three Kingdoms and Western Jin: A history of China in the Third Century AD,” Internet Edition, 2003. 

6  The timeline for this section of The Book of Mormon is incredibly tenuous. I give a tentative timeline of the battle below (see fn. 53). 

7  This following is a summary of the major events starting in Ether 13:15 to the end of chapter 15. 

8   Ether 14:10 could be explicating verse 9 or could be introducing a new actor. 

9   At this point in The Book of Mormon’s timeline, the Jaredites fade from history and the Nephites assume a central role.  While the common assumption is that the Jaredite nation is destroyed, Hugh Nibley concludes that the political leadership is destroyed, but Jaredite individuals continue to participate in Nephite society, usually as bad actors.  See Hugh Nibley, The World of the Jaredites.

10  Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire, (Oxford University Press, 2006), 260-262. 

Conversion is Crown Deep: Reassessing Helaman 4-6

Helaman 5 includes a long discussion of the preaching of Nephi and Lehi, and a rather remarkable vision and story. This includes a pillar of fire and ministering angels. Between Helaman 5:17-19 and 51-52 over 8,000 Lamanites around Zarahemla are converted, and they gave back all of the territory they conquered in chapter 4. The most perplexing to me is why did baptism result in major territorial change? It’s basically covered in one perfunctory verse yet there must have been some intense celebration and political wrangling. The current elites and governor would have to share or give power to the returning elites, and the sudden recovery of territory would have propelled Nephi and Lehi into stratospheres of popularity. Yet it gets a single verse, about half a chapter of happy talk, and then lots more talk about Gadianton Robbers. Nephi and Lehi remain somewhat aloof and even leave the land for many years (and chapters). Obviously there is something more going on here.

Why Convert In History

Luckily, we have plenty of historical precedent for mass conversions. In the space of about 100 years the Roman Empire went from persecuting them to having an Emperor convert and declares it the state religion. The German tribes that invaded often converted to a heretical version of Christianity which limited their influence with the people they ruled.[1] The Mongol rulers were surprisingly tolerant of Nestorian Christianity and a significant minority of them converted. Rising European states like Ukraine essentially held try outs between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and the personality of the missionaries and heads of church influenced the outcome a good deal.

There was more than sincere conversion that played a role. The political rulers could unify the realm under a central religious system. Though there was also some potential political division in the short term. Many of the Ukrainian nobles rebelled for example over their king’s conversion but were crushed or converted. The title of king was incredibly important in helping rulers overcome reluctant pagans and overcome revolts. From the Kingdom of Sicily to Poland all the way to the Holy Roman Emperor in 800 AD, a ruler often went to great lengths and made many concessions to get their crown sanctioned by the church. Being a Christian king allowed the ruler to consolidate his rule against his noble rivals who refused to convert.  Sadly, considering the message of love, it became another club that the rulers could use to beat their pagan subjects. Christian institutions such as churches and monasteries became important centers of revenue for the budding state.

The baptism of Clovis in 496 AD. Notice the combination of warrior like pose, crown, and spiritual ceremony. This was part of the beginning of early medieval France and the European community. 

Diplomatically the new Christian kingdom became part of the club. They often had closer relationships with other Christian kingdoms and diplomacy was easier. Baltic States that converted not only found new allies in defense, but they also received justification for crusades against their pagan neighbors.  The conversion of Lithuania shows many of these trends. The ruler vacillated between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, lobbied for a crown, sought marriage alliances that included conversion, thought conversion would help them rule their Eastern Orthodox subjects in their Russian territories, and viewed conversion as a way to end the crusade of Teutonic Knights against them.

The final benefit had to do with tools of statecraft. The new kings had to organize, equip, and feed armies as well as tax the nation.  The first alphabets for many Eastern Europeans languages were written by missionaries and the first written documents were translated Bibles. The Venerable Bede of Great Britain provided one of the first histories of that region. So the church ended up providing some of the most important tools of statecraft that expanded central power, provided for added administrative controls, and even wrote down their legends and founding myths that are important to every country.

Book of Mormon Conversion

Helaman 6 describes a brief period of peace after the mass Lamanite conversion. Given that most of the chapter shifts to discussing the Gadianton Robbers, I doubt the peace and prosperity was as widespread as it seems but the benefits are real. Politically, Helaman 4:4 discussed dissenters from the Nephites stir up Lamanites to battle, so it’s not surprising that some Lamanites might have resented the usurpation of power and think joining the Nephites was a better option.  Remember that Amalickiah and his brother and Nephew recently ruled the Lamanites. Ammoron’s son invaded the Nephites in Helaman 1, in the same time frame as Moronihah’s command in Helaman 4.  The contemporary leaders aren’t mentioned, but it’s likely that existing dissenters and the new ones in Helaman 4:4 likely assumed leadership positions in the Lamanite army, politics, and church.  

But with their conversion the Lamanites became part of the Nephite power and trading  structure.  Helaman 6:3 and 8 record “they did fellowship…[and] did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain. They also became extremely “rich (Helaman 6:9.)” In fact, this is a great series of verses that discusses the many trades and crafts that exist from gold and silver mining to weaving and ranching.  This is a period of prosperity that likely discusses the strengthened Nephite position with the new converts. There is no word on leadership positions, but the chief judges are rarely mentioned by name, and when they are there is no backstory, and a distinct separation from the traditional centers of power that dominated in the book of Alma. This is very speculative but there is evidence of a political realignment that allows the possibility of power sharing with the Lamanites converts.  

At other points in the text, a rapprochement between the two sides led to greater written correspondence, which suggests a greater emphasis cultural communication and the tools of state craft mentioned above.[2]  The Lamanites are actually praised for using “every means” to “destroy” the Gadianton Robbers, which might be the only time in the scriptures their martial activities are praised. Talk about being part of the club and receiving justification for their actions! When the Lamanites are not part of the club they are described a warlike, bloodthirsty and plundering people.

In the church the Lamanites were respected by Mormon for their steadfast conversion, and they had positions of authority and influence as Samuel the Lamanite preachers in Helaman 6:4 came to Zarahemla.  and in military affairs the Lamanites received benefits for their conversion.

In matters of politics, statecraft, trade, the military and spiritual matters, the Lamanites benefited from their conversion.  They were no longer the indolent and violent outsider, but a part of the club. Even though the Lamanites participated in many of the same political wrangling and military maneuvers as before their conversion.

It’s true that Helaman chapter 6 says the Lamanites became more righteous in this period. The overall arch of the chapter which discussed wickedness and Gadianton Robbers for most of it, and the wickedness replete in Helaman and 3^rd Nephi, combined with a more nuanced view of the benefits of conversion, suggest there is more to this conversion than a heartwarming story which included many benefits that enhanced their status within Nephite society.  I can’t help but wonder if the quick pride cycle and falling away by many church members throughout the Book of Helaman was because their conversion was only crown deep (Helaman 6:31).  

What do you think?

*********

---

[1] Which I discuss in a chapter of my new book.

[2] I couldn’t find the specific verse. If somebody wants to mention it in the comments I’ll give you a million imaginary bonus points. 

[Thanks for reading. Many of you might not know, but I was in the hospital for a brief period last month. I'm okay now, but I have a good deal of medical debt and work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using one of the paypal buttons below. It is especially helpful at this time.] 

The One Dynasty Wonder

For those of you that don't know, Phillip Jenkins, an Evangelical scholar  from Baylor University and William Hamblin from FARMS and BYU have been exchanging messages in a long debate. Even before that started Jenkins started several threads that essentially parroted anti Mormon talking points against the Book of Mormon. I've stayed out of the debate for a few reasons. Their arguments have reached about 30 blog posts each, and thats not including the posts from Jenkins that had over 500 comments and replies.  To use a technical term, Jenkins is a total dick and anybody basically familiar with the Book of Mormon can see the flaws in his arguments, but he refuses to read evidence which supports the text because he says there is none.

In the course of providing evidence Hamblin asked Jenkins if he would accept a name from the Book of Mormon that is also seen in the Mayan kings lists. Hamblin showed that the Jaredite king Akish is is listed on the king list of Palenque as U-Kix.

Jenkins of course discounted this and so did many of the critics following this debate. In response, a poster named Runtu argued that Akish was a one dynasty wonder that couldn't possibly have been cited thousands of years later.   He details how Akish was not in the king list in Ether 1, and chapters 8 and 9 show how Akish rebelled against Omer, and did fairly well for a bit. But eventually Omer regained the kingdom. Thus this is a rather "problematic" comparison.

Since I was only sort of following the argument I didn't come up with a response, until I read it again on Mormon Dialogue, and noticed how Akish is the first to introduce secret combinations in the text. My answer discussed the role that role that Gadianton Robbers played in history, the nature of "history" in the Book of Mormon, and the role of historical memory.

I don't include much of the words of my interlocutor but you do have the link where the discussion took place. Mainly he ignored my arguments, which is why its repeated twice, and made the ridiculous assertion that my argument isn't supported by the text.  I'm amazed at critics that superficially read the text based on faulty, unexamined assumptions, (and the person on Mormon dialogue didn't even come up with the argument),but then they ignore interpretations that offer in depth analysis based on a thorough knowledge of history and historical methods. And yet I'm the apologist crank for doing so.  

Since it originated on a discussion board, it isn't as polished or organized as it normally is, but was a remarkably fun and I think pretty good impromptu analysis of the text that critics fail to do.
***

I might consider how much we don't know about the Jaredite Civil Wars, and the place of rulers in the historical memories of the people who came after them. The account of the Jaredite destruction for example, actually follows Coriantumr when he isn't in power, Ether 13:23-24, 14:7.  The Book of Ether almost completely ignores the ruler in power at the time except for his battles with Coriantumr. It seems like a good choice considering Ether's purpose in describing the fulfillment of the Lord's prophecy to Coriantumr. But its makes for rather strange history compared to what we are used to and see in other historical accounts.

Might I tentatively suggest, that if Akish is really the same as U-Kix, then its possible we don't have the entire history of Akish and the reason why he is important to Mayans a thousand year later. It might have something to do with the secret combinations he introduced, which were also active during the Jaredite denouement, Ether 13:25, 14:8, and of course active through much of Nephite history as well. The Gadianton Robbers were even a political power during the end of Nephite history, to the point that the Nephites concluded a treaty with them and ceded territory. Mormon 2:28. So you can see traces of Akish's influence over a long period if you count Gadianton Robbers.   Critics might argue this is a very weak post hoc explanation. I would say in return, that the evidence which matters is the Akish- U-kix connection.  And the rest is the educated filling in the blanks that historians normally do when they only get a couple pieces in a 1000 year puzzle. 

****

Thanks for the response.  I thought I made myself pretty clear in a variety of ways. I was pretty clear the the Book of Ether was written with a specific purpose, which didn't include a history of Akish.  I showed specific verses which detailed how much of the last few chapters for example focused on Coriantumr and were not a typical dynastic history. And you could show the same thing with the rest of the book as a message about the rise and fall of the Jaredites, not the influence of Akish. Moreover, I talked about the Gadianton Robbers, which you seem to think is a rather paltry connection.  The band Akish formed was enough to fight for the kingdom. The bands at the end of the Jaredite nation were enough to support an incredibly bloody and long lasting civil war.  The ones in the middle of Nephite history were enough to almost cause their entire destruction. (See 3 Nephi 3 and 4.)  And they were strong enough to force the Nephites into ceding their ancestral lands at the end of Nephite history. Thats pretty much covers every period of the BoM.  Imagine how much information we might have if the Nephites weren't specifically forbidden to talk about it! Alma 37:29. You can also make the case, as I do in my second chapter of my book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents, that the Gaidanton Robbers were ethnic others. As such they would be specifically excluded from a lineage history of Nephites and the ethnic chauvinism that every ancient writers possessed. So in case I wasn't clear enough, I think you can make an argument, gleaned on whats included and specifically excluded in the text, using a keen analysis that historians make upon texts, that there is much more to Akish than a one generation "dynasty." In fact, there is a certain degree of importance and longevity that would be worth including in a king history...

There is a also a great deal about historical memory we don't know.  Besides kind of knowing the Kings name, what do we know about U-Kix of Palenque and why was he important to them  1500 years later?  Just like the Jaredites influenced the Nephites, I'm not going to summarize the literature that says so, but you can look at things items of continuity such as place and people names, the Olmecs also influenced the Mayans. The 1500 year later argument isn't even serious for me.  Lots of groups have founding myths that are based upon historical people, or semi historical people with mythical elements, or what historians believe are completely mythical people.  For example, Sargon the Great and the Yellow Emperor are two figures that go so far back in time they are semi mythical or the details incredibly spotty and debated. Sargon's name actually meant "the true king" so its possible he was invoked by leaders thousands of years later not because his dynasty lasted uninterrupted,  but because he would add legitimacy to current rulers. There is a robust history about nobles changing genealogies to gain legitimacy. Any usurping king could easily manipulate his king list to include, if we accept my reassessment of Ether, somebody like Akish.

Several times I expressed the tentative nature of my ideas, but this makes perfect sense to me. From the lack of any substantial history about Palenque before the classic period, as well as the limited history of the Book of Ether, I thought this was reasonable, albeit tentative and speculative suggestion based on the BoM, what I know about historical documents and memory, and Mayan history. To be extra clear, this means I think Akish is more important than you suggest, there is more continuity between Jaredites and Nephites and Olmec Maya than given, and plenty of space for him in Mayan historical memory.

Amalickiah: God Made Me King

I found a great article by Ben Spackman which details the possible origins of Amalickiah. Spackman, in making his case, details some of the behaviors of Near Eastern usurpers and suggests several intriguing items. He points out that Amalickiah could be a throne name designed to grant him additional legitimacy. He also hints at the idea that since his brother assumed the throne after his death that they killed the sons of the previous Lamanite King. Spackman pointed out that this article still needs some work, but he certainly presents some intriguing ideas.

Nephite Politics

I came across an interesting verse in my studies. In Helaman 11:8-9 we read:

8 And the people began to plead with their chief judges and their leaders, that they would say unto Nephi: Behold, we know that thou art a man of God, and therefore cry unto the Lord our God that he turn away from us this famine, lest all the words which thou hast spoken concerning our destruction be fulfilled.
9 And it came to pass that the judges did say unto Nephi, according to the words which had been desired. And it came to pass that when Nephi saw that the people had repented and did humble themselves in sackcloth, he cried again unto the Lord, saying...

But I have several questions. Why did the people have to plead with Nephi through intermediaries, "their Chief Judges"? Wasn't Nephi preaching among them? Couldn't the people have talked to Nephi themselves?

Mesoamerica often consisted of rival city states somewhat similar to ancient Greece. For example, Sorenson describes a King with "powers limited at best". The King still had to personally visit another King to gain an individuals release. Even a strong ruler often relied upon what is called the "hegemonic" style of government. Where the stronger power relies upon trusted local leaders to assert their control.[2]

Thus, based on both Mesoamerican politics and previous incidents in The Book of Mormon I believe that Nephi was in a city that was only nominally aligned with the central government. Since at one point the Gadianton Robbers gained "sole managment" of the government,[3] Nephi's message was not accepted, [4] and a previous governor established his government outside of Zarahemla, [5]I believe that Nephi was in a city with a righteous population and governor. Much like King Lamoni, if one ruler needed the subject of another ruler then he had to personally appeal to that person's King.

This reading gains strength when we read how the people "could not take him and cast him into prison" for he was conveyed by the "spirit".[6] In some cases supernatural explanations are provided for what otherwise is a rational explanation. In this case I believe it was due to his protection (body guard?) from a powerful ruler. And it was only through the allowance of that benefactor that Nephi could be reached.


I've often said that many criticisms of The Book of Mormon result in a shallow reading of it. In this case, carefully reading this verse suggests that the Nephites were not a nation as powerful and long lasting as the Roman Empire. But their dominance was rather transitory. And its possible that during this time the Nephites were not only an ethnic minority but often out of power as well.

Thanks for reading.

***Sources***
1. It looks like there is no # 1 but I'm too lazy to go back and change all of my footnotes.
2. John Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting For The Book of Mormon (Provo, Deseret Book 1985), 227-229.
3. Helaman 6:39
4. Helaman chapter 9
5. Alma 61:5
6. Helaman 10: 15-16

The Good Emperor

In this post I discussed how the editor, Mormon, went to great lengths to illustrate how the lifestyle of King Noah justified the withdraw of divine favor and his violent overthrow. Now I will show the opposite. Mormon inserted a lengthy speech from King Benjamin, who ruled at roughly the same time as King Noah. King Benjamin extensively details his righteousness, not to boast but to show why he has received God's favor and ultimately why his people have been blessed. I will show from ancient Chinese texts how a ruler had to qualify for the "Mandate of Heaven", and how the rulers mandate then blesses his people.

From the Six Secret Teaching by T'ai Kung we read:

King Wen inquired of the T'ai Kung: "The world is replete with a dazzling array of states-some full, others empty, some well ordered, others in chaos. How does it come to be thus? Is it that the moral qualities of these rulers are not the same?...
The T'ai Kung said: "If the ruler lacks moral worth, then the state will be in danger and the people in turbulence. If the ruler is a Worthy or a Sage, then the state will be at peace and the people well ordered. Fortune and misfortune like with the ruler, not with the seasons of Heaven."...
[King Wen then asks about a worthy ruler from history named Emperor Yao]
T'ai Kung: When Yao was king of the world he did not adorn himself with gold, silver, pearls, and jade. He did not wear brocaded, embroidered, or elegantly decorated clothes. He did not look at strange, odd, rare, or unusual things. He did not treasure items of amusement nor listen to licentious music. He did not whitewash the walls around the palace or the buildings nor decoratively carve the beams, square and round rafters, and pillars. He did not even trim the reeds that grew all about his courtyards. He used a deerskin robe to ward off the cold, while simple clothes covered his body. He ate coarse millet and unpolished grains and thick soups from rough vegetables. He did not, through the [untimely imposition of] labor service, inure the people's seasons for agriculture and sericulture. He reduced his desires and constrained his will, managing affairs by nonaction.
He honored the positions of the officials who were loyal, upright, and upheld the laws, and made generous the salaries of those who were pure and scrupulous and loved people. He loved and respected those among the people who were filial and compassionate, and he comforted and encouraged those who exhausted their strength in agriculture and sericulture....
He preserved and nurtured the widows, widowers, orphans, and solitary elderly and gave aid to the families who had suffered misfortune and loss...
What he allotted to himself was extremely meager, the taxes and services he required of the people were extremely few. Thus the myriad peoples were prosperous and happy and did not have the appearance of suffering from hunger and cold. The hundred surnames revered their ruler as if he were the sun and moon and gave their emotional allegiance as if he were their father and mother."
King Wen: "Great is the Worthy and Virtuous Ruler!"

We learn in this section that a ruler that seeks power must first gain heavenly favor. This ruler does this through a humble lifestlye that does not disturb the people. Emperor Yao was recognized as an example through 1: Not adorning himself with riches. 2: He avoided unrighteous and licentious behavior. 3: He did not overburden the people with excessive building projects. 4: He supported and protected the farmers and widows. 5: He kept taxes extremely low.

In the Book of Mosiah we read towards that beginning of King Benjamin's speech:

11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.
12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;
13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—
14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.
16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.
17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?...
31 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should do as ye have hitherto done. As ye have kept my commandments, and also the commandments of my father, and have prospered, and have been kept from falling into the hands of your enemies, even so if ye shall keep the commandments of my son, or the commandments of God which shall be delivered unto you by him, ye shall prosper in the land, and your enemies shall have no power over you.


We read that King Benjamin did not seek riches. He suffered "in body" for his people, which could be similar to wearing a simple deerskin coat during the winter. He led by example in living a righteous life, and points out his and his people's avoidance of adultery and "all manner of wickedness". He labored with his own hands to avoid burdening the people with building projects and taxes. He spent his days serving his people. And he concludes by saying that he and his people have been blessed. After reading this I have to remark as King Wen did: Great is the Virtuous ruler!

In conclusion, just as the Book of Mormon matched an ancient editorial insertion in the description of the Bad Emperor, Mormon's inclusion of a Good Emperor's speech is verified by ancient record. This is not a silver bullet that seeks to prove the Book of Mormon's historicity. I don't think their is such a thing. This is one more example of a bulls eye verified by ancient record when we should expect nonsense if this were fiction.

The Bad Emperor

The great thing about being done with grad school is the fact that now I can actually slow down and enjoy all of my reading. Instead of doing 100 pages a day, I can now slow down and do about 20. My first re-reading is Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900 by David Graff. In my readings I came across Graff's description of the "bad last Emperor". On page 62 Graff describes how Chinese historians, mainly civil bureaucrats, would depict the "bad last Emperor" that would forfeit the Mandate of Heaven. The biased historian described the ruler Shi Hu as:

a man of enormous sensual appetites, addicted to the pleasure of the harem...[and his] 'actions were harsh and cruel'...He put vast numbers of peasant labor conscripts to work on his palace complexes...imposing great hardships on the people...[he] dug up the tombs [of ancient rulers] to find treasures that had been buried with them...When he quarreled with the heir apparent, he had the young man, his consort, and his 26 children killed and buried together in a single coffin.

There are several general traits that are associated with a "bad Emperor:"

1. the person loves sensual appetites. 2. Builds multiple and implied unnecessary palaces. 3. By doing 1 and 2 he imposes a great burden on his people, through taxes and labor. 4. He kills any possible threat to his rule, often in cruel fashion. Graff argues that historians may have exaggerated his "sins" in order to justify the violent rise of a new dynasty. This leads to point 5. That a historian's account of a bad ruler will take special pains to highlight the sins of the ruler.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, a sinful ruler also forfeited his right to rule. Mormon acting as a historian would also take time to justify the Lords punishment of the individual and their loss of power. The case that jumped to my mind was that of King Noah. Mosiah Chapter 11 verse 2 starts the account:

2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.
3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed...
4 And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom...
8 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;
9 And he also built him a spacious palace, and a throne in the midst thereof...
12 And it came to pass that he built a tower near the temple...
13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom...
14 And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.
15 And it came to pass that he planted vineyards round about in the land; and he built wine-presses, and made wine in abundance; and therefore he became a wine-bibber, and also his people....

As we can see in Chapter 11 of Mosiah, King Noah is depicted by Mormon as a "bad Emperor." He uses stark language to describe the sins of King Noah. These sins match many of those that fit the "bad Emperor" Shi Hu in Chinese history- love of concubines, love of riches, grandiose building projects, and an insecure ruler who had any threat killed- and just as Shi Hu lost the divine sanction for his realm, so did Noah. Noah lived in "riotous" fashion, he had the threat to his ruler, the prophet Abinadi, burned at the stake, he chased out one of his priests that listened to him, he built many "spacious building" and a tower in a place of "resort."

In summary:

The account of Mosiah matches the literary conventions of other ancient historians who sought to insert a particular moral lesson into their account. There are differences in the particulars of each account, and this doesn't mean that Chinese historians influenced the Book of Mormon, but it means the salient points are incredibly similar and can help us understand the event better. This does not cast into serious question the historicity of the event (since Noah could still have been all those things) but the bias of Mormon in his description of Noah adds authenticity to his status as an ancient historian and to the Book of Mormon.