This time reading through Ether, I noticed an interesting
pattern in the way the kings conferred the kingdom on their sons. It seems as
though many times they do not give the kingdom to the oldest son. Instead, they
tend to give it to one of their youngest
sons.
The factors that make me think this are the following:
1) In
the record, the brother of Jared declares the people should constrain no man to
be their king, and he refrains from conferring the kingdom on his eldest son,
even though the people want him to. This sets a new precedent for the beginning
of the Jaredite nation.
2) The
record has many instances when we are told the king begat many sons and
daughters and begat son X in their old age and conferred the kingdom on son
X. For the
longest time, I was so influenced by the assumption of primogeniture (first son
inherits all), that I thought somehow son X was the eldest and was listed last
to emphasize the transition of power.
But now I think it was actually showing how kings were conferring their
kingdoms on some of their very youngest sons, rather than the eldest.
How many instances are there of this particular practice?
1) Jared
>> Orihah (Ether 6:27)
2) Orihah
>> Kib (Ether 7:1-3)
3) Kib
>> Shule (Ether 7:7)
4) Shule
>> Omer (Ether 7:26, 8:1)
5) Omer
>> Emer (Ether 9:14)
6) Emer
>> Coriantum (Ether 9:21-22)
7) Coriantum
>> Com (Ether 9:24-25)
8) Shez
>> Riplakish (Ether 10:2-4)
9) Kim
>> Levi (Ether 10:14-15)
10)
Levi >> Corom (Ether 10:16)
11)
Lib >> Hearthom (Ether 10:29-30)
Most of these examples are pretty early in Jaredite history.
(The beginning for the end for
this system was Shez choosing Riplakish, since Riplakish turned out to be a
greedy, immoral person. After that, I wonder if the credibility of the practice
was damaged.)
What this practice seems to have done is cause the sons of
kings to think carefully about whether they were both willing and capable of
ruling. Another advantage it would
have was that the son inheriting the throne would have more youth and vigor
while ruling. And at the beginning
of the Jaredite nation, it seems to have worked well. But only when there were
righteous kings.
The disadvantage to the system was that the older sons, if
ambitious, had far too much time to get impatient, leading to coups and rebellions.
Another interesting thing I noticed was that in Ether 10
there are three different instances
of rebellions against the king starting after a king ruled for 42 years. It
happens in verse 8, 15, and 32. It made me wonder if there was anything significant
about that particular length of time, so I emailed Book of Mormon Central about
it. They suggested some
associations for the number 42 in Egyptian mythology, but nothing that sounded
like it had much bearing on kingship. I shall quote their answer:
It is possible that the number 42
was a symbolic number for the Jaredites, although it is difficult to say at
this point. If there is an ancient Egyptian connection to the earliest culture of the Jaredites, as Nibley seemed to think,
then it is possible that the number 42 is related to the Book
of the Dead. In this book,
there are 42 questions asked of people making
their journey through the underworld. If the departed reasonably can give
answers to the 42 questions, they have the potential to be reincarnated. If
they fail, bad things happen to them. It is possible that the number 42 is
included to show a symbolic judgement against the king. However, I should
stress that we really have no idea. (Answer given by Jonathon Riley)
That being said, it occurred to me that rebellions 42 years
into a king’s reign might be related to longevity and aging issues. For a king
to reign 42 years, the older they were when they took the throne, the older
they would be when 42 years of ruling came around. It might represent a time in
the king’s reign when the king was less able to govern, when they may not have
settled on who was to succeed them, and maybe when they were not yet ready to
let go of power. That might have been an ideal time for
an ambitious usurper to foment a rebellion and get away with it, especially if
they hoped to get out from under an oppressive king. But for an aging, righteous king it would cause a lot of
damage.
A third observation I have on the Jaredite monarchy is that
it is interesting that the brother of Jared says kingship will lead into
captivity (Ether 6:23), and the fulfillment of this is highlighted when the kings are brought into captivity, rather
than the people. I’m not quite sure what to make of this, considering the
strong lessons of King Noah’s reign of how a wicked king makes righteous people
less free. In our democratized age, we are much more used to thinking about the
consequences in terms of whether it is good for the people instead of the king, so I have to wonder how this message
might find applicability in our time.
But maybe it is still worth looking at. The stories of the
kings in Ether seem to shine a spotlight very strongly on how ambition and
envious subjects would seek to constrain and capture the king. It may be that the heyday of the
usefulness of this message was in Nephite times and so it is less emphasized
for our day.
One thing is for sure: after the inauguration of our new
president, I think considering the stories of the Jaredite kings makes me glad
we have a pretty peaceful transition of power between presidents elected by the
people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment