In Ether 14, in the
middle of the chaos and war for the Jaredite kingdom, Coriantumr’s rival at
that time, named Gilead, makes himself king, but is murdered, but there are
conflicting reports on how this happened.
8 Now the
brother of Shared, whose name was Gilead, also received great strength to his
army, because of secret combinations.
9 And it
came to pass that his high priest murdered him as he sat upon his throne.
10 And it
came to pass that one of the secret combinations murdered him in a secret pass,
and obtained unto himself the kingdom; and his name was Lib; and Lib was a man
of great stature, more than any other man among all the people. (Ether 14:8-10)
For a long time I was
inclined to think this was saying the high priest murdered Gilead and then Lib
murdered the high priest. But now I’m more inclined to think this is actually
giving us two conflicting accounts of who killed Gilead.
But why two
conflicting accounts? Maybe no one
knew who did it.
Was it done by the
king’s high priest, or was it done by a secret combination? Or was the high
priest part of the secret combination?
Further, not only is
there disagreement about who did it,
but where it was done. Was it done at
the throne or was it done in a secret pass? Where was the king found dead? No one says anything about
that.
It seems to me that
the supposed murderer in each report is oriented a certain way in the
conflict. The king’s high priest
is an insider. A secret combination is a group of outsiders. And people would be inclined to accuse
people on the other side of crimes done by unknown persons. Coriantumr’s people (outsiders at
the time) would say insiders did it because “see, that shows how awful they
are; they can’t even trust each other.”
Gilead’s people (insiders at the time) would say outsiders did it
because “see, that shows how awful they are; they can’t stand for anyone but
their own guy to be in charge.”
Each side constructs an explanation to serve their own ends.
And with things as
chaotic as they were, would there be any chance for justice to investigate and
grind out the real answer? Not
likely. Who would do it when they’re still fighting over who’s in charge? Who is going to be accepted as the
authority to investigate and execute justice? Probably no one. Thus, there would always be conflicting
reports. Each side probably used
it to demonize the other.
And Ether, unwilling
to favor either side, simply gives both sides.
So this little
incident shows us that justice has not just broken down for the little guy, but
also for the big important people.
Nobody, not even the king, can get justice because everyone wants to
escape it. Mysterious deaths remain unsolved, and people just use them to whip
up animosity for their enemies.
This is the kind of
thing that makes me really appreciate having a justice system with civil
rights. I’m sure there are people that
can point to incidents of injustice and faults in the system, but in comparison
to awful anarchy at the end of Jaredite society, we have a lot to be grateful
for. At least we have a system
that works on the whole.
4 comments:
Not sure I agree with your analysis, but unless we can talk to Moroni, who added this record we can agree to disagree.
What is your analysis, Rozy Lass? What do you think the text is saying? I'm curious.
Sorry, I forget to check for follow-up comments to be sent.
I think if we replace the pronouns with names it becomes clearer, at least to me.
8 Now the brother of Shared, whose name was Gilead, also received great strength to his army, because of secret combinations.
9 And it came to pass that his (Gilead’s) high priest murdered him (Gilead) as he (Gilead) sat upon his (Gilead’s) throne.
10 And it came to pass that one of the secret combinations murdered him (the high priest) in a secret pass, and obtained unto himself (the murderer of the high priest) the kingdom; and his name was Lib; and Lib was a man of great stature, more than any other man among all the people. (Ether 14:8-10)
What do you think?
Well, I read the verses that way for a long time, but my post explains that there is another way of reading it.
But since it all hinges on the identity of "him" in v9, I suppose we can't really know for sure, can we? (Dratted pronouns. ;-))
Regardless of which interpretation is right, we are still left with a picture of a society in which kingly succession is no longer orderly, but involves assassination and secret combinations. We also get a dim view of the state of religion when a high priest becomes an assassin.
Thanks for explaining your view.
Post a Comment