A People in Bondage: King Limhi's Proclamation

From Mosiah chapter 7:

20 “And…it is because of our iniquities and abominations that he has brought us into bondage."

25 “For if this people had not fallen into transgression the Lord would not have suffered that this great evil should come upon them."

29 “For behold, the Lord hath said: I will not succor my people in the day of their transgression; but I will hedge up their ways that they prosper not; and their doings shall be as a stumbling block before them.

30 “And again, he saith: If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the chaff thereof in the whirlwind; and the effect thereof is poison.

31 “And again he saith: If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the east wind, which bringeth immediate destruction.

32 “And now, behold, the promise of the Lord is fulfilled, and ye are smitten and afflicted.

33 “But if ye will turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart, and put your trust in him, and serve him with all diligence of mind, if ye do this, he will, according to his own will and pleasure, deliver you out of bondage."

See also 2 Chronicles 7:14

Servitude to the State

Our founders enumerated powers in our Constitution to ensure that the scope of government remained limited, thereby preventing government from re-enslaving the people.  For decades the government has used the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution to justify expansion and increasing involvement in or control over the lives of citizens.  This has resulted in a corresponding degradation of liberty and servitude to the state.  To illustrate this, let’s examine the government’s role in meeting the needs of the poor and frame the discussion with Aesop’s fable, “The Ant and the Grasshopper”.

In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content.  An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest. 

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present."  But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil.  When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer.  Then the Grasshopper knew:

It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.

This well-known fable highlights the importance of industry and self-reliance, while also highlighting the folly of indolence and procrastination.  In another version of this fable the ant refuses the starving grasshopper’s petition for food and upbraids him for his wasted summer and unpreparedness.  This variation leads some to ignore the original moral of the fable and instead condemn selfishness and lack of compassion on the part of those like the ant.   Granting that the grasshopper was lazy and the ant lacked charity, let’s consider which side our government comes down on.

There are two types of poor, the deserving and undeserving.  Deserving poor are those who are poor through no fault of their own, while the undeserving poor are able bodied with adequate opportunity but choose not to work for their basic necessities.  The grasshopper in Aesop’s fable is clearly intended to highlight the undeserving poor.  Our government’s welfare policies make no attempt to distinguish between the two and therefore incentivize the indolence of the grasshopper.  Worse, government unjustly makes the industrious ant the slave of the grasshopper.

If our government were cast in Aesop’s fable, upon identifying the plight of the undeserving grasshopper, instead of using the force of government to compel him to work and earn his own bread they would use the force of government to take the fruits of the ant’s labor and redistribute it to the grasshopper through welfare instruments.  Instead of forcing self-reliance the government chooses to force “charity” and fosters dependence.  Since there is no incentive for the grasshopper to become self-reliant his annual plight will persist and the government will continue to force the ant to support the grasshopper with his labor.  It is a twisted mind that can claim justice in this scenario.

 

The individual himself should be the first line against poverty, yet the government’s policies do not seek to foster self-reliance.  The next line of defense should be the family, yet the government’s policies do not seek to strengthen and support this vital institution in society.  Quite the contrary, the government has for some time supported and aided those in society bent to destroy the family and has sought itself to replace the family.  Welfare distribution actually discourages poor pregnant females from getting married.  The next line of defense should be religious based institutions and organizations specifically established to relieve poverty. 

   

One author wrote that the “private charities of the nineteenth century had been more successful and humane than the twentieth-century welfare state – private charities had stressed what he called affiliation, trying to help the poor by restoring broken family ties, whereas contemporary social policy emphasized personal autonomy.  Private charities had tried to bond with those they cared for when they were truly on their own, whereas the welfare state was bureaucratic and impersonal.  Private charities tried to discern who really needed help and who merely sought to live in indolence; the welfare state made no such distinction” (Regnery,2008).

The government is impersonal and will never be able to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor.  Instead of assuming the role and responsibilities of charity, they should establish policies that foster self-reliance and strengthen those institutions of society best able to do so and to administer to the deserving poor.   As long as government stays in the welfare business, they will continue to unjustly make the hard working members of society the slaves of the undeserving poor.

In expanding outside of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, our government has slowly marched towards tyranny and despotism.  Our welfare system is but one example.  Always under the guise of authority, justice and the general welfare of society, politicians have fostered a mindset and culture of dependency on government.  The have passed laws that steadily eroded personal liberty and put government in control.  They are increasingly bold in despoiling the fruits of our labors to support the growing aims of the state.  Sadly, too many of our citizens cannot see this destruction in operation.

The Collapse of Free Societies

John Quincy Adams, 6^th President of the United States, said this regarding the bible: “In what light soever we regard it, whether with reference to revelation, to history, to morality, or to literature, it is an inexhaustible mine of knowledge and virtue.”  I have the same sentiments about the Book of Mormon and think that even the reader who doesn’t believe as I do that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin, especially the reader who loves liberty, will find my references to it below intriguing and thought provoking, if not illuminating.

The Book of Mormon details the rise and fall of two ancient civilizations on the American continent, the Nephites and Jaredites.  It highlights in particular the righteous and productive forces that enabled their growth and prosperity as well as the evil and destructive forces that resulted in their downfall.  Critical analysis of the accounts will reveal obvious parallels that our nation is following, offer explanations for why things have happened or are happening as they are and more alarmingly foreshadow bleak and terrible days ahead if our people do not make the necessary course corrections.

 

The Nephite civilization was delivered from destruction and led to a land of promise, and after becoming a free people, like the children of Israel, they began to serve other gods besides the God of their fathers, “walking in their own way”, setting their bounds not according to God’s will, but according to their own carnal desires.  The Jaredites civilization followed a nearly identical path.  The prosperity and peace originally obtained as a blessing from God through obedience to Him had become a stumbling block and their hearts turned more and more to things of the world, to instant gratification of the flesh rather than eternal reward and happiness.  Thus in turning from God they began to forfeit his blessings and mercy and reap the demands of justice as prophets had warned over and over would happen: 

“But if they obey and serve him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasures.  But if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge.” (Job 36:11-12)

“If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the lord hath spoken it.” (Isaiah1:19-20)

“Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.  And if it so be that they serve him…it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.” (2 Nephi 1:7)

See also Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, 1 Samuel 12:14-15, Matthew 7:24-27, Romans 2:2-11, Alma9:13, Ether 2:12.

 Eventually, the Nephites were annihilated in war, but not before their society descended into decadence and their free government collapsed. 

The initial crack in the dam leading to eventual destruction was individual wickedness and apostasy from true principles of their religion.  A minority condition at first, eventually it grew to the point that the vast majority of citizens accepted or embraced the ever increasing iniquitous behavior in society.  From the beginning, evil men worked to hasten the elimination of virtue in society and set the conditions required for them to achieve their satanic goal of gaining power and control over the people and the fruits of their labors.  To this end they deliberately attacked faith in the existence of God, sought to silence any public advocate of righteousness and virtue, and sought power and influence in government by whatever means necessary including seduction of the people by allowing them to share in their spoils. 

The center of gravity in this political struggle was belief in God.  In attacking this faith, the enemies of liberty denied His existence or twisted the truth of His nature.  They taught that belief in God was foolish and man must not believe in anything he cannot verify or witness with his own senses. There was no proof of God’s existence, they claimed, nor was there a transcendent standard of good and evil, right and wrong.  They re-framed the right to free exercise of conscience to be only a right to free exercise of worship, and that in private, outlawing any public intimation of religion due to the feigned offense it gave to non-believers.  They pretended that people purporting to believe in a non-existent God did so in order to exercise control and dominion over others through their churches and the morality that they legislated.  They denied faith; they denied the Holy Ghost; they denied the Savior; they denied sin and convinced people it did not exist and there was no reason to restrict it or seek forgiveness for it.  

Because the truth had a tendency to resonate with people and encourage belief in God, which resulted in public virtue, they sought to silence the voice of believers through a court system infested with unrighteous lawyers and judges.  Motivated not by truth and justice, but by prestige in skill of winning arguments and associated monetary gain, unrighteous lawyers sought high profile cases in which to demonstrate their skill and cunning devices in court, to get rulings tantamount to good being evil and evil being good, which would swell their fame and increase their earnings.  Without conscience they applied their art to make people cross their words or contradict themselves, fabricating evidence to make the innocent appear guilty, or the guilty go free.  Unrighteous judges rendered judgment not according to the laws and justice, but according to their own whims or interests, inventing authority and setting the law at naught for personal gain, fame and power.  Evil men thereby eliminated enemies and stole property in collusion with these judges under the guise of the law and justice. 

Conspiring men did whatever was necessary to gain access or placement in government in order to turn it to their uses in plundering more and more property and wealth from others. These means frequently included murder as was the tradition of such men from the time of Cain to present.  Even as their actions and designs became more apparent, they enjoyed swelling popular support as policies of redistribution of wealth gave promise to the indolent and covetous among them that they could reap without sewing, get something for nothing, and have perpetual entitlement to eat the bread of another man’s labor.  

In this environment of greed and wickedness, the would-be tyrants corrupted the laws and government, despoiled the industrious in society, criminalized opposition and ultimately brought upon the nation the judgments of God.  The people suffered judgment in loss of liberty and subjection to an unrighteous ruling class.  They suffered judgment in drought, famine and wrecked economy.  There was no peace among them within or without.  War continually afflicted them until ultimately the sword devoured them, eliminating their wickedness from the face of the earth.  

He who hath ears, let him hear; who hath eyes, let him see.

Have the forces of political correctness in our day silenced objection to vice and wickedness in our society?  Has the Christian virtue of tolerance been redefined to mean “acceptance”, further minimizing opposition to the evil trends in our society?  Are basically good people hamstrung by the fallacy that to discriminate between good and bad, a requirement of choosing the right, is contrary to the teaching of Christ to “not judge”, and therefore stand silent so as not to be condemned publicly for “discrimination” and “intolerance”?  Are we complacent in our defense of liberty, and the public virtue required for its preservation?

I conclude with the following warning and admonition from two inspired and righteous men.

“We are too “broad minded” to challenge what we do not believe in.  We are afraid of being thought intolerant – uncouth – ungentlemanly.  We have become lukewarm in our beliefs.  And for that we perhaps merit the bitter condemnation stated in the Book of Revelations 3:16: ‘So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.’” (Ezra Taft Benson)

“Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle.  Courage, not compromise brings the smile of God’s approval.  Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently.  A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh.  Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.” (Thomas S. Monson)