Mosiah's Legacy of Law: An Example for our Day

The Last of the Nephite Kings

King Mosiah II was the grandson of Mosiah I and the son of King Benjamin. He ruled from about 124 BC, when he was thirty years of age (1), until his death in 91 BC. (2)

His rule was one of righteousness for he did “walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him”.(3)

Mosiah charged a descendant of Zarahemla named Ammon with the task of finding those Nephites who had some generations before gone up to the land of Nephi-Lehi. After having accomplished this Ammon was asked by their king, Limhi, if he knew of anyone that might translate the records of the Jaredites which his people had discovered. Ammon’s reply gives us a good understanding of Mosiah’s standing with the Lord for, said Ammon, Mosiah was a seer who had a “high gift from God” and that a “seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have…” (4) Mosiah, then, was not only a righteous king but also the spiritual leader of his people.

Mosiah was also the last king of the Nephites, a reality which he himself initiated in the final year of his life when he shared his vision of a civilization ruled not by monarchs but by the people themselves through elected representatives called Judges (governors).

The Birth of the Nephite Republic

What were Mosiah’s reasons for putting forward such a drastic change in the Nephite constitution? Perhaps if we look at the events just prior to this we might gain a glimpse into Mosiah’s mind.

Mosiah had just finished translating the Jaredite records. The testimony of that record to the wickedness of kings must have weighed heavy upon him. Remember that he also had the example of the wicked King Noah, father of Limhi, to think about. Mosiah would of course have also had the record of the Lord’s dealings with ancient Israel and thus the Lord’s warnings regarding kings (5). Lastly, Alma himself, no doubt a great friend and confidant of Mosiah, spoke out against having kings (6) and may have also influenced Mosiah.

About a year before Mosiah died he desired to know the will of his people concerning who should be their next king. However, none of his sons desired to be king (7). This cleared the way for Mosiah to launch into his famous address on government in Mosiah chapter 29 in which Mosiah convinced his people to lay aside the doctrine of kings and espouse a Reign of Judges – a Nephite Republic where Freedom under Law was the watchword, and where all were equal before that Law.

The disadvantages of monarchies and the merits of free government will not be compared or discussed in this article. Our purpose is to examine the specific laws that the Nephite republic enforced, laws that were ostensibly laid down by Mosiah.(8)

Where did Mosiah’s Laws Originate?

Mosiah and his predecessors surely knew of the Law of the Covenant, the Law of Statutes and Judgements – the political laws revealed to Moses for the government of the Israelites under their own reign of judges. Mosiah told his people that their laws had also “been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord”. (9)

Thus the Nephite laws were based on the revelations of God. They were “correct”. This statement in and of itself supports an important truth sometimes forgotten in our often relativistic world: laws of men are either just or unjust. It is not a matter of opinion. In other words, some laws in our land are “correct” and others are “incorrect”. (10)

The Law of the Nephites

It is interesting to see how so much of the Book of Mormon dwells upon the period of Nephite self-government (92 BC to AD 29) and we might well ask ourselves ‘Why?’. Why is over 40% of the text of the Book of Mormon dedicated to just 12% of the Nephite history (and that’s not even taking into account the Jaredite history)? Could it be that the Lord knew that the Book of Mormon would come forth among a people also blessed with self-government? Could it be the Lord also knew that, like the Nephites, that blessing would be taken for granted and eventually corrupted and lost? Are the answers to its preservation contained in the Nephite record?

We will now take a look at some of these Nephite laws which were “given them by the hand of the Lord”:

Law #1 – Punishment should Fit the Crime

“him have I punished according to the crime which he has committed, according to the law which has been given to us by our fathers” (Mosiah 29:15; see also Alma 1:10)

Most people feel the sense of justice contained in the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. It is certainly backed up by the Old World scriptures for the Lord proclaimed “with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (11) This seems to work both ways, for good or bad!

What is a just punishment? Certainly it is one that should make the average person think twice about committing the crime in the first place. However, it should not be so severe that the government itself acts unjustly.

Some countries have adopted very harsh punishments for certain crimes that fall short of premeditated murder. For instance, hanging was once the punishment for theft. Theft is a serious crime. It can ruin lives. However, if a thief knows he will be hung then he will go to any means to avoid capture, even committing murder. After all, he has nothing to lose. Thus under such a system there is far less incentive for repentance and every incentive for criminals to only become more hardened.

A just punishment could perhaps be determined by punishing the perpetrator to the degree (though not necessarily in the same way) to which he was willing to allow his victim to suffer. This certainly seems to be in harmony with the Lord’s injunction in the scripture last quoted. Such a view neither makes the punishment too lenient or too excessive for any given crime; and ensures it always fits the crime.

Does society today follow such a model or do other considerations creep in? Can punishment sometimes reflect the mood of the moment, political correctness? Can punishment be determined by objectives and goals that foster arbitrary rather than just sentences under the rule of law? Is our society building up a judicial system that inhibits the natural flow of justice by providing punishments unjust to both criminal and victim alike?

Law #2 – The Death Penalty

“And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man…and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance. Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah…” (Alma 1:13–14)

The death penalty, never revoked by the Lord, has always been the punishment for murder.(12) In the above scripture Alma recognised that the Lord would hold him accountable if justice was not served.

Today, do governments have this same understanding that Alma had over two thousand years ago? Progressive governments of our day have largely done away with the death penalty. Is this wise? Why do governments sanction so much taking of life through other means (such as abortion, financially support and backing of murderous regimes and groups) where many innocents are killed and yet refuse to take the life of proven murderers? Does the failure to punish this crime affect all of society?

Law #3 – Liars were Punished

“they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they [liars] pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.” (Alma 1:17)

Lying and deceiving robs the victim of correct knowledge and thus restricts their liberty. A simple example of this would be false advertising wherein the customer acts upon false information and ends up deceived out of his money with a product or service that does not benefit him and that may even do him harm.

However, this law was not applicable if someone related untruths unknowingly. Crimes, traditionally, must have criminal intent behind them. A man cannot sin in ignorance. And, as we can see from the Nephite record, unless it could be proved a person was lying (i.e. possessed of criminal intent) the assumption was of innocence as far as any resulting harm was concerned.

These truths have been all but abandoned among governments today and many offences now exist where there is not only no criminal intent but also no violation of rights or even a victim. A conscientious and freedom-loving people must ask themselves if it is just to punish someone, no matter what the effect of their actions, if that person intended no evil. They, if at fault, may justly (and privately) be compelled to make restitution to the offended party, but no just punishment can be brought to bear upon such a person. They are not criminals. The law of restoration still applies, but not the law of punishment.

Nephite law did not punish where no criminal intent could be proven. Think about this: the teachings of those who upheld priestcrafts had terrible consequences for the church and Nephite society generally and yet the church bore it with patience, and the government did not stop those who did “preach according to their belief”. Today, are serious consequences and social problems used as an excuse to justify punishing (i.e. infringing the rights) of those who possess no criminal intent and are infact law-abiding citizens? (13)

Law #4 – No Law Against a Man’s Belief

“Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds…for there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.” (Alma 30:7,11)

Though many people would agree that a man may have his own beliefs the question is, Is it really the case that this freedom still exists in practice? Beliefs are generally unknown (and somewhat wasted) unless they are expressed in writing, speech, or deduced from action.

So does society today ever stop a person from expressing his beliefs? The answer must be that it does, and this can be very dangerous. If people are not allowed to share what they believe to be true, then the only information people will be exposed to is what the government approves as true and/or safe. Is that a purpose of government? Should such a thing be entrusted to governments?

Another serious concern is the tide of new legislation in relation to what are referred to popularly as ‘hate crimes’. Is hate itself a crime? No, it is not. It is a bad attitude that needs to be overcome. Furthermore, ‘hate’ according to this latest trend, is being defined by what you believe. Can attitudes really be determined from what you believe? Is it the purpose of governments to make such assumptions and interpretations? Who decides what is right and wrong?

A crime is a crime. If a person physically assaults another person then he has violated his duty to refrain from violating the right to person (or life) of the other. Unless in self-defense he has acted with criminal intent. The process of law should be executed on this basis. He should be punished according to the crime regardless of his beliefs.

However, we must ask ourselves if we now find laws that punish the criminal more if his crime was (for example) “racially motivated”. If we do then: (a) Does it violates the right to not be punished for your belief (right of liberty of mind or conscience)? (b) Does it make people unequal before the law by designating some beliefs as acceptable and some as not (not to mention causing contention between people who feel this inequality)? As the scripture says, does it brings men onto “unequal grounds” which is “strictly against the commands of God”?

Let’s look at this another way. What should be the punishment for the following crimes: (a) racially-motivated bodily harm, (b) religiously-motivated bodily harm, (c) politically-motivated bodily harm, (d) gender-motivated bodily harm, and so on ad infinitum?

If we punish one more than the other what are we saying? If someone receives a sentence of two years for harming someone who has chosen a certain alternative lifestyle, but only a moderate fine and community service for harming someone to the same degree and with the same malice but motivated by a dislike of their religion, is that fair?

All must be treated the same if we are to be just. It is the crime that is punished not the belief (right or wrong) behind it, as the above scripture makes very plain.

Is our society today gradually making more and more laws that oppress selected beliefs? Do we live in a society where the law truly respects the right to freedom of belief and the expression (where there is no violation of rights) of that belief? It is a question we should all seriously ask ourselves.

Law #5 – No Transference of Punishment

“if a man murdereth…will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? But the law requireth the life if him who hath murdered.” (Alma 34:11–12)

It may shock many people today to know that crimes perpetrated by criminals often bring a punishment upon “his brother” (i.e. everyone else in society). This usually occurs in some form of infringement upon liberty or property. An example would be the dispossessing of individuals the right to keep and bear arms as a result of laws made in reaction to shootings (i.e. the crimes of others). It also occurs when the courts hand out money to victims, that is, our money rather than the money, time or effort of the criminal.

Is this just? Should government punish its people because of the crimes (or potential crimes) of others? It seems the Nephites did not think so.

Law #6 – The Right to Self Defense

“Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense…” (Alma 48:14)

Law itself has been described as the “the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense”. (14) Thus governments may only direct armies in time of war to defend the country because citizens have authorized that power of government. In order to authorize it they, the citizens, obviously must first possess that right themselves in order for it to be delegated. Such delegation does not rob individuals of the right to continue to defend themselves of course.

Today, however, we find that whilst many people accept that armies may keep and bear arms, they do not necessarily believe private citizens should. This is strange because the fact that a soldier can keep and carry a gun to protect his country would not be possible unless the same right existed for a citizen in relation to his home.

If laws are passed that restrict or destroy the right of citizens to defend themselves we must ask wherein governments gain such authority? Is this a just law or an unjust one? From the scriptures, both in the Old World and New World setting, we see that citizens (and Saints) kept and bore arms in times of peace. (15)

Conclusion

This article highlights just some of the Nephite laws found in the Book of Mormon. If these laws, as the record attests, truly were received from God and thus based on just and holy principles, we must ask ourselves where a society that ignores them is heading. As we begin to understand the principles of freedom we might just gain that vision of which President John Taylor spoke when he said:

“As we have progressed the mist has been removed, and in relation to these matters, the Elders of Israel begin to understand that they have something to do with the world politically as well as religiously, that it is as much their duty to study correct political principles as well as religious, and to seek to know and comprehend the social and political interests of man, and to learn and be able to teach that which would be best calculated to promote the interests of the world.” (16)

End Notes and References

1. See Mosiah 6: 4
2. See Mosiah 29:46
3. See Mosiah 6:6
4. See Mosiah 8: 13–16
5. See Deuteronomy 17:14–20
6. See Mosiah 23: 6–13
7. See Mosiah 29:3
8. See Alma 1:1
9. See Mosiah 29:25
10. Just because a law is incorrect, or unjust, does not mean Latter-day Saints should be lawbreakers. To learn more about when LDS should (and possibly should not) keep the laws of the land read the ‘I Have A Question’ section of the June 1976 Ensign. The full on-line link is: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20june%201976.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=constitution$x=Simple$nc=8144#LPHit1
11. See Matthew 7:2
12. “This divine law for shedding the blood of a murderer has never been repealed. It is a law given by the Almighty and not abrogated in the Christian faith. It stands on record for all time…” (Charles W. Penrose). See also First Presidency statement on capital punishment made by Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith in 1890)
13. Joseph Smith seems to have understood this principle when discussing the concept of licensing laws (laws where governments punish law-abiding individuals by disallowing them the right to contract about their own affairs in business): “I also spoke at length for the repeal of the ordinance of the city licensing merchants, hawkers, taverns, and ordinaries, desiring that this people might be a free people, and enjoy equal rights and privileges…” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume V, p. 8)
14. Frederic Bastiat, The Law, p.2. A free electronic copy of this classic book is available at http://www.thecbn.net
15. The Apostles were apparently allowed arms (see John 18:10) and the story of Gideon and Nehor (Alma 1) shows that the same was true in the New World society. Weapons would have also been needed for hunting of course and in this context are often mentioned in the scriptures.
16. Journal of Discourses, Volume 9, p. 340.