Father to Son: Some More Thoughts About Mosiah
In explaining to his people why he's doing away with the monarchy, Mosiah says this:
Now I declare unto you that he to whom the kingdom doth rightly belong has declined, and will not take upon him the kingdom.
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.
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.
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. (Mosiah 29: 6-9)
I wonder about the appropriateness and motivation of bringing up Aaron's past sins (Aaron was the son the people wanted to rule them, and is the object of the allusion "he to whom the kingdom doth rightly belong") in such a public manner. After all, Aaron was one of those with Alma when the angel came to stop them from destroying the church. He was converted miraculously and went on a mission to the Lamanites despite opposition from just about everyone. While there, he suffered imprisonment, abuse, and other privations, but remained faithful. He also saw many of those he helped convert die under the swords of their brethren who hated them for their conversion to the Nephite religion (although I'm pretty sure that didn't happen until after this speech). Does Mosiah honestly question Aaron's integrity or that of his other sons? Does he think they could go back to being sinners as quickly as they came out of it? I doubt it.
Then why bring it up?
Well, for one thing, we're not talking about who gets to have the car next weekend. We're dealing with kingdoms, riches, power, and glory here - some of the very things Satan thought were his best chance at tempting Christ himself to commit sin. The pressures are enormous. Mosiah realizes this as well as anyone, and he knows history. He also knows that there's a difference between not wanting to be king yourself, and wanting someone outside the royal family to take control.
The sons of Mosiah would have made good kings precisely because they were righteous and could not be shaken from their righteousness. But if someone other than a legal heir was to receive the kingdom, those sons might have a tinge of worry at how things would be handled. That would open the door to pride, which would suggest that the best way to keep the kingdom safe is to have it ruled by a righteous king (a truth, by the way). And perhaps my calling, Aaron thinks, is to deny my desires and take the kingdom anyway, as a longsuffering righteous king like my father! Wouldn't that be better than letting a person of questionable character with no background experience take the throne? I'm used to this pressure after all, but he's not! I wouldn't want to let him destroy himself by getting carried away with his power! I love him too much!
You can see how easy this might be.
So Mosiah recognizes the humanity of his sons and the fact that they are still susceptible to temptation. He doesn't think they'll fall away, though. In fact, he's been promised that they won't (see Mosiah 28:7).
No, he uses the hypothetical case of his son returning to sin as an object lesson. He shows the people what could happen. It's all a part of his dissertation on the trials and troubles of a righteous king vs. the people's injury under a wicked one. But does that make it right? Doesn't he basically call his son's character into question in front of his entire kingdom? Isn't he setting his son up as a potential threat to the peace of the people - an unknown quantity? Aaron's not even there to defend himself! What kind of father would do that?
Apparently, the honest kind. And I don't think Aaron would have defended himself, because he would have seen no attack. He didn't have any pride to be wounded. He probably would have nodded his head and said, "Dad's right. If I lose my way again there's no telling what I'd do." He'd recognize his own weakness and probably use his father's statement as a reminder to keep himself in the right path.
So am I saying that what looks on the surface to be a father to son insult is really proof of their mutual understanding of each other - evidence that they both love the truth and have integrated it tightly into their relationship? I think I might be. Weird.
Now I declare unto you that he to whom the kingdom doth rightly belong has declined, and will not take upon him the kingdom.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder about the appropriateness and motivation of bringing up Aaron's past sins (Aaron was the son the people wanted to rule them, and is the object of the allusion "he to whom the kingdom doth rightly belong") in such a public manner. After all, Aaron was one of those with Alma when the angel came to stop them from destroying the church. He was converted miraculously and went on a mission to the Lamanites despite opposition from just about everyone. While there, he suffered imprisonment, abuse, and other privations, but remained faithful. He also saw many of those he helped convert die under the swords of their brethren who hated them for their conversion to the Nephite religion (although I'm pretty sure that didn't happen until after this speech). Does Mosiah honestly question Aaron's integrity or that of his other sons? Does he think they could go back to being sinners as quickly as they came out of it? I doubt it.
Then why bring it up?
Well, for one thing, we're not talking about who gets to have the car next weekend. We're dealing with kingdoms, riches, power, and glory here - some of the very things Satan thought were his best chance at tempting Christ himself to commit sin. The pressures are enormous. Mosiah realizes this as well as anyone, and he knows history. He also knows that there's a difference between not wanting to be king yourself, and wanting someone outside the royal family to take control.
The sons of Mosiah would have made good kings precisely because they were righteous and could not be shaken from their righteousness. But if someone other than a legal heir was to receive the kingdom, those sons might have a tinge of worry at how things would be handled. That would open the door to pride, which would suggest that the best way to keep the kingdom safe is to have it ruled by a righteous king (a truth, by the way). And perhaps my calling, Aaron thinks, is to deny my desires and take the kingdom anyway, as a longsuffering righteous king like my father! Wouldn't that be better than letting a person of questionable character with no background experience take the throne? I'm used to this pressure after all, but he's not! I wouldn't want to let him destroy himself by getting carried away with his power! I love him too much!
You can see how easy this might be.
So Mosiah recognizes the humanity of his sons and the fact that they are still susceptible to temptation. He doesn't think they'll fall away, though. In fact, he's been promised that they won't (see Mosiah 28:7).
No, he uses the hypothetical case of his son returning to sin as an object lesson. He shows the people what could happen. It's all a part of his dissertation on the trials and troubles of a righteous king vs. the people's injury under a wicked one. But does that make it right? Doesn't he basically call his son's character into question in front of his entire kingdom? Isn't he setting his son up as a potential threat to the peace of the people - an unknown quantity? Aaron's not even there to defend himself! What kind of father would do that?
Apparently, the honest kind. And I don't think Aaron would have defended himself, because he would have seen no attack. He didn't have any pride to be wounded. He probably would have nodded his head and said, "Dad's right. If I lose my way again there's no telling what I'd do." He'd recognize his own weakness and probably use his father's statement as a reminder to keep himself in the right path.
So am I saying that what looks on the surface to be a father to son insult is really proof of their mutual understanding of each other - evidence that they both love the truth and have integrated it tightly into their relationship? I think I might be. Weird.
Comments
This thing about the power of a wicked king to corrupt a whole society is something the Nephites understood with a very quick look at their own recent history. King Noah was the cause of much pain and wickedness, diametric to what King Benjamin successfully achieved.