Why would a person vote to eliminate their own freedom?

I’ve been intrigued the past couple of weeks by the children of Israel, who insisted on having a king, even after the prophet Samuel warned them of the terrible consequences of this decision: Their children would suffer, they would lose control over their possessions, and they would not be empowered to object to the king’s decisions. “Ye shall cry out in that day,” he said, “because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:18).

The people ignored the warning. “Nay,” they said, “but we will have a king over us” (1 Samuel 8:19). At the Lord’s instruction, Samuel reluctantly fulfilled their request and chose a king.

In the Book of Mormon, the trend moved in the opposite direction. King Mosiah, horrified to hear about the abuses of power of King Noah, proposed to the people that the monarchy be abolished and replaced with a system of judges, chosen “by the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:25-29).

This move toward democracy, with checks and balances to prevent any single person from gaining too much power, was a positive thing for the Nephites, partly because it gave every citizen a sense of ownership over their collective decisions. (See Mosiah 29:34.) But the shocking and tragic part of the story is how many times, in subsequent years, groups of people tried to eliminate this new system of government and choose a new king.

  • In the fifth year of this new system, a man named Amlici made a bid to become king. The proposal was serious enough that an election was held. In the time leading up to this election, there was “much dispute and wonderful contentions” among the people (not wonderful as in “good,” but wonderful as in “astonishing”). In the end, Amlici lost, but unsurprisingly, he had no respect for the outcome of the election, and he instructed his people “to take up arms against their brethren.” Many lives were senselessly lost in the battles that followed. (See Alma 2.)
  • Fourteen years later, a man named Amalickiah convinced a large number of people to support him in an attempted coup. Many of those who supported him were elected officials (“lower judges”), who were motivated by his promises “that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people.” In response to this imminent threat, Captain Moroni created the Title of Liberty and rallied his people to defend their country. (See Alma 46.)
  • Six years later, a group of people proposed some changes to the law, which would “overthrow the free government and…establish a king over the land.” The chief judge, Pahoran, opposed these changes, and the people voted not to adopt them, but the dangerous fact remained that a sizable group among them wanted to eliminate democracy. “Those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.” (See Alma 51.)
  • Five years later, there was a violent insurrection. Pahoran was forced to flee the capitol, and the king-men appointed a man named Pachus to be king. Captain Moroni had to bring troops to reinstate Pahoran as chief judge and reestablish the rightful government. (See Alma 61, 62.)

Why did Mormon, who told us that “a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people” could not be included in his book, choose to describe these events? (See Words of Mormon 1:5, Helaman 3:14, 3 Nephi 5:8.) Maybe because they are relevant to us.

Ezra Taft Benson said:

The Book of Mormon…was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us…. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, [Mormon] abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us.

The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion,” General Conference, October 1986

As I’ve followed the hearings held by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, I’ve been alarmed and disturbed by the actions taken by government officials in the United States in an attempt to undermine the lawful processes of government. I’m personally less concerned about the actions of any individual and more concerned about what these events indicate about our collective commitment to government by the people.

No one is proposing that we establish a monarchy, of course, but our laws and institutions have certainly been weakened by leaders trying to hang on to power at all cost, instead of deferring to the voice of the people. Like the Nephites, we must be careful not to elevate into positions of authority those who would abuse that authority and prioritize their own status over the welfare of the nation.

Today, I will communicate with my elected representatives. I will strive to influence them to make decisions which preserve and strengthen our system of government and preserve our fundamental freedoms.

6 thoughts on “King-men

Add yours

    1. You probably noticed that I didn’t mention any (modern) government official by name. President Oaks has reminded us that no candidate or party is perfect. Therefore, Elder Oaks said, “We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate.”
      In the same talk, however, he also said, “The authority of the Constitution is trivialized when candidates or officials ignore its principles.” (“Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” General Conference, April 2021).
      I think it is incumbent on all of us as citizens to be aware of the actions of our elected representatives and to support leaders who are honest, wise, and good (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10)
      Thanks for the comment!


    2. When they don’t listen to mainstream media, and understand all the good things he did while he was president. How can any members of the church support Biden is what blows me away? The election was rigged. Never saw anything like it. This was the opposite of democracy. This was the real danger to democracy. I don’t condone what happened at the capitol, but I understand why people were angry.


      1. You and I agree that what happened on January 6th was wrong. No matter how upset a person may be with the outcome of an election, and no matter how much a person questions the way the election was conducted, we must share a collective commitment to our democratic processes, including a willingness to accept the results of elections. Al Gore expressed this principle powerfully when he acknowledged his opponent’s victory in the 2000 presidential election. In his concession speech, he said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.” This is the minimum we must expect from any political candidate: to prioritize the unity of our nation over his or her own political ambitions.
        President Dallin H. Oaks reiterated this principle shortly before the 2020 election. He said that the twelfth article of faith requires us to “peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome. In a democratic society we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.”
        I hope those thoughts are useful to you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: