1 And now behold, it came to pass in the commencement
of the fortieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, there
began to be a serious difficulty among the people of the Nephites.
2 For behold, Pahoran had died, and gone the way
of all the earth; therefore there began to be a serious contention concerning
who should have the judgment-seat among the brethren, who were the sons of
Pahoran.
3 Now these are their names who did contend for
the judgment-seat, who did also cause the people to contend: Pahoran, Paanchi,
and Pacumeni.
4 Now these are not all the sons of Pahoran (for
he had many), but these are they who did contend for the judgment-seat;
therefore, they did cause three divisions among the people.
We don’t even know what their birth order was, but we can
imagine one of them as an oldest child seeking to keep the authority he has
wielded all his childhood. We can imagine the others seeking to gain
some ascendency so that they can have some additional respect among all the
sons of the great chief judge. This sibling rivalry became magnified
to national proportions, since it caused three divisions among the
people.
5 Nevertheless, it came to pass that Pahoran was
appointed by the voice of the people to be chief judge and a governor over the
people of Nephi.
6 And it came to pass that Pacumeni, when he saw
that he could not obtain the judgment-seat, he did unite with the voice of the
people.
The
single bright spot in this story is that Pecumeni, when he saw that he couldn’t
win, united with the voice of the people and upheld his brother as chief
judge. There is a good example here of unselfishly celebrating the
accomplishments of our siblings and supporting them, even if it feels like it
is at our expense. (If only Paanchi had decided to do the same.)
7 But behold, Paanchi, and that part of the
people that were desirous that he should be their governor, was exceedingly
wroth; therefore, he was about to flatter away those people to rise up in
rebellion against their brethren.
We are not given any of the reasons behind Paanchi’s
anger. He might have had good
reason; maybe he was ticked at underhanded campaigning tactics. Or it may have
just been pride and desire for self-aggrandizement that drove him. At any rate, he could not accept
defeat, and the text says he was “about to” flatter followers toward a
rebellion.
8 And it came to pass as he was about to do
this, behold, he was taken, and was tried according to the voice of the people,
and condemned unto death; for he had raised up in rebellion and sought to
destroy the liberty of the people.
Pahoran’s (2) capture of his brother was according to
precedent, as during the previous extended war with the Lamanites his father
Pahoran (1) and Captain Moroni had to strictly enforce a law by which any found
denying their freedom, or refusing to take up arms to defend their country,
fighting against their country, were put to death.
Yet Paanchi and his followers probably took the view that it
is one thing to be “about to” flatter people and start a rebellion, but it is
quite another to actually do it. It seems Pahoran took Paanchi’s
premeditation and preplanning of rebellion as grounds to try him as a criminal
as if the rebellion had actually occurred. Mormon maybe has revealed to us here why Paanchi’s faction
felt pushed toward criminal methods of trying to get what they want with
assassination. Before, they only
wanted to rebel, but when Paanchi was taken and tried and condemned, they
decided that he should be killed.
At this point we should also consider there may be strong family
programming influencing both Pahoran and Paanchi’s actions. Their father Pahoran (1) was once
ousted from the judgment seat.
Pahoran (1) had to flee and then try to drum up support from the
populace (and the army) to get enough backing to retake his judgment seat. This experience would have made a deep
impression not only on his mind, but the minds of his sons. Furthermore, Pahoran (1) would
certainly add to that impact by reinforcing to his sons the personal lessons
that he learned about dealing strictly with rebels and how to rally popular
support when ousted.
It is possible that both Pahoran (2) and Paanchi felt they
were playing a part in a scenario similar to what their father went through,
both making the assumption that it was time to use the lessons their father
taught them. Even though Paanchi
did not have the voice of the people, he probably located himself in the story
as the ousted-but-rightful judge who had to drum up support in order to claim
his place. Pahoran (2) probably
located himself in the story as the judge who was strictly quelling
rebellion. Somehow they
became prisoners to their father’s experience and couldn’t see how their
situation might require different responses. It may also be that their peculiar status in a highly
visible family and relationship to each other was uniquely qualified to
illustrate that law’s weakness or susceptibility to abuse. The tragedy is almost Shakespearean.
9 Now when those people who were desirous that
he [Paanchi] should be their governor saw that he was condemned unto death,
therefore they were angry, and behold, they sent forth one Kishkumen, even to
the judgment-seat of Pahoran, and murdered Pahoran as he sat upon the
judgment-seat.
If Paanchi thought he was the rightful judge, then his
followers probably considered the conflict an actual war and sent Kishkumen as
a Teancum-like measure to assassinate the “enemy leader.” Perhaps they saw it as eye-for-an-eye
retribution, if Paanchi had been executed (although the text is not exactly clear
on whether Paanchi actually was executed or not. It only says he was “condemned unto death.”) Or, the fact that their open opposition
had been violently suppressed made them decide to take their opposition
underground. But whatever they thought about the justice of their measures, it
was wrong, and unfortunately, this brought assassination into the political
arena during peacetime, and once brought in, it stayed.
10 And he was pursued by the servants of
Pahoran; but behold, so speedy was the flight of Kishkumen that no man could
overtake him.
11 And he went unto those that sent him, and
they all entered into a covenant, yea, swearing by their everlasting Maker,
that they would tell no man that Kishkumen had murdered Pahoran.
12 Therefore, Kishkumen was not known among the
people of Nephi, for he was in disguise at the time that he murdered Pahoran.
And Kishkumen and his band, who had covenanted with him, did mingle themselves
among the people, in a manner that they all could not be found; but as many as
were found were condemned unto death. (Helaman 1:1-12)
It’s the beginning of the awful Gadianton Robbers. I ran across a website that synthesized
Hugh Nibley’s thoughts on the Gadiantons’ essential nature as distilled from
the Book of Mormon:
“Let us summarize the essential nature of what some have
called ‘Gadiantonism’:
“Objectives.
(1) ‘Power and gain,’ the
two being interactive: power wins gain and gain wins power for whoever has
either.
(2) Control or overthrow of the government; using political
office ‘to rule and do according to their wills,
that they might get gain and glory’ (Helaman 7:5).
“Methods.
(1) Secret agreements between individuals and groups. The
Gadiantons are essentially an underground movement.
(2) Assassination. These two things, ‘secret combinations’ and ‘that men
should shed blood,’ have been forbidden by God ‘in
all things . . . from the beginning of man’ (Ether 8:19).
(3) "Payola": ‘Akish
did offer them money’
(Ether 9:11); ‘letting the guilty . . . go
unpunished because of their money’ (Helaman 7:5).
(4) Skillful propaganda and public relations: ‘flattering words.’
(5) The hate campaign: a steady output of charges,
accusations, and rumors, in the manner of Amalickiah: Accuse--always accuse.
Eagerness to accuse is from the devil, as Brigham Young often taught.
(6) Intimidation: ‘breathing out
many threatenings,’ operating ‘by the hand of
secrecy,’ wearing fearsome disguises (3 Nephi 4:7).
(7) Showmanship, e.g., the picturesque uniforms and romantic
appeal to the young (3 Nephi 1:29).
(8) Tight control of members--death penalty for betrayal
(Ether 8:14; Helaman 1:11).
“Attitude.
(1) The Gadiantons were totally partisan, the laws and
interests of the combination taking priority over all other laws and interests.
(2) All were ambitious, hence the labor for power and gain:
Cain is the type and model.
(3) The combinations were highly competitive, feuding fiercely
among themselves.
(4) They sought to project a noble image, with much talk of
rights and wrongs, high courage and upright character (the letter to
Lachoneus).
(5) They professed piety and religion, swearing their
forbidden oaths not by the demons but ‘by the God of
heaven’ (Ether 8:14), ‘by their everlasting
Maker’ (Helaman 1:11).
(6) They were paranoid, always attributing their troubles to
the wickedness of others; never the aggressors, they are constantly seeking to
avenge their wrongs. Vengeance is their watchword.
“Ecology.
(1) They flourish best in an affluent business society, and
wither in times of poverty.
(2) They crystallize around ambitious individuals.
(3) They readily coalesce with king-men, would-be nobility,
great families, ambitious local officials, and rapacious Lamanite overlords,
i.e., with all who are opposed to popular government among the Nephites.
(4) They have destroyed every civilization in the New World
in which they have been able to thrive.
(5) They cannot thrive or even survive without the
acceptance and encouragement of the society in general. Being predatory and
non-productive, i.e., parasites, they must have a complacent society to host
and support them. Such a society is one which accepts as desirable the Gadianton
goals of power and gain.
(6) They can become dormant for long periods of time and
then, when circumstances are favorable, suddenly appear in full strength and
vigor, their plans having been buried and preserved intact against the day of
opportunity.
“The Gadiantons, terrible as they were, are treated more as
a symptom than as a disease: the society that has them is sick, but they are
like maggots that prey only on dead tissue; they simply exploit the evil
situation that gives them their opportunity.” (http://josephsmith.com/wp-content/content/Joseph_Smith_Book_of_Mormon/Helaman6.htm.
Adapted from Hugh Nibley’s Since Cumorah,
pp. 370-2)
Some concluding observations and lessons from this story:
·
Sibling rivalry is a very bad thing among adults. Even if national elections aren’t
involved, it is still bad. It
forces relatives to take sides and can turn the family into a battleground. Hostilities become even more
deep-seated and can last for generations.
(The whole Nephite-Lamanite opposition is another example of this.)
·
It almost seems as if there is an element of offense and
revenge that underlies what happens.
Paanchi was offended by Pahoran’s win, so he decides to rebel. Pahoran is offended by Paanchi’s anger
and planning to rebel, so he decides to take him and try him for treason and
condemn him to death. Paanchi’s
supporters are offended by Pahoran’s brand of justice, so they decide to have
Pahoran assassinated. At any point
individuals involved could have decided to just stop the cycle of offense and
revenge, but no one did.
·
Pahoran Jr. and Paanchi may have been prisoners of their
father’s difficult experience. Sometimes
we learn the lessons of the previous generation too well to the point that we
become unable to imagine alternative responses that might be more appropriate. This is why it is so heroic and amazing
when someone can break out of a cycle of family abuse, addiction, or divorce.
·
People are susceptible to be tempted into forming secret
combinations when open opposition to the powers that be is violently
suppressed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment