Ether 10

10:1-8 - This is the theme for this chapter. We left off with a famine bringing the people who were left of the Jaredites to repentance. Moroni tells us that the king who led them into this great wickedness, Heth "had perished by the famine, and all his household save it were Shez- wherefore, Shez began to build up again a broken people." Very descriptive wording used by Moroni here, those who survived the famine were "a broken people," that seems like an accurate description. Shez was the king and was righteous because "he remembered what the Lord had done in bringing Jared and his brother across the deep; and he did walk in the ways of the Lord." In keeping with the theme of crazy plays for power, Shez's oldest son "did rebel against him; nevertheless, Shez was smitten by the hand of a robber, because of his exceeding riches, which brought peace again unto his father." It's sad that the death of a child brought peace to the king Shez, but as a righteous ruler, Shez knew that rebellion and plays for power would do to his people, the blood shed and heart ache that would result, kind of like when Nephi was commanded to kill Laban, the death of one man is preferable to the destruction of a nation. Just another example is when David mourned for Absalom, the death of Absalom brought an end to that war and reinstated David as the ruler of Jerusalem. David mourned the loss of Absalom his son more than he rejoiced in the peace that came to his people. Shez rejoiced in the peace brought to his people more than he mourned the loss of his son. I'm not saying that we can't look at the tragedy of the situation and be saddened by it, we absolutely can, and I'm not saying that Shez didn't mourn his son's death, I'm sure he did, and rightly so, but I would imagine that it's one of those situations where the heart grieves but the mind rejoices, does that make sense? With Shez Jr. out of the equation, a younger son of Shez takes over for his father, and his name is Riplakish. This is where the meme comes into play. I don't know who all knows much about the Hunger Games trilogy, but basically it's the same premise as much of the Book of Mormon, an oppressive government and the people struggling to be free, and again I have to ask myself what are people thinking when they run a government this way? Shez takes the righteous society, the ones who are just one generation out of a crippling famine and Riplakish had "many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men's shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings." He build himself a huge, ornate throne, and built many prisons, and whoever couldn't or wouldn't pay their taxes went to prison. In prison these people did refine his gold and "all manner of fine workmanship he did cause to be wrought in prison." I thought that this was an interesting point Moroni mentioned, that the people on prison worked in refinery and there were many artisans in prison. I wondered how that could be, if he purposely set up his artisans to be imprisoned so that he could take advantage of their free labor. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought about the economic processes that takes place in a society. If people have a lot of money, they buy art and "fine workmanship" because they have extra money left over after they supply their basic needs of food, water, and shelter. But if you take the people who have a lot of money and usually buy art pieces and take a lot of their money away via taxes, suddenly they don't have money left over after trying to cover their basic living expenses. So if no one has extra money to buy extras like art work after the taxes are levied against them then the artists make no money, they can't pay their own taxes and that's how the artisans end up in prison doing slave labor for the king. Here's the ultimate irony about the laws set up by Riplakish, "he did cause that they should labor continually for their support; and whoso refused to labor he did cause to be put to death." Ultimate irony here? If Riplakish were going to be held accountable to his own standards enforced upon his people, then he himself would be put to death for refusing to work. Things that make you go... hmmm...... An oppressed people will only endure that kind of enslavement for so long, and as I think about it, about the different examples of governments that have been overthrown and what leads up to that, I think that when you get to the point where the people would rather die than continue to live that way, that's when they are motivated enough to cause insurrection. Revolution is costly, in lives, in food, it takes forever to recover from, but when people can say "if I rebel, I might die. If I don't rebel, I would rather die then live this way" that's the point where people are willing to say no more and raise up against their governments. Sure enough, that's what happened here, Riplakish made it 42 years as all supreme leader until "the people did rise up in rebellion against him; and there began to be war again in the land, insomuch that Riplakish was killed, and his descendants were driven out of the land." The IM points out the similarities between Riplakish and king Noah, quoting Isaiah was warning, "For the leaders of this people cause them to err."

Continuing, "The righteous king Mosiah later commanded his people not to have kings because 'the sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their kings.'"

10:9-12 - Take out righteousness as a factor for kingship, say you are just as greedy and power hungry as all these crazy people we read about, Heth, Riplakish, Akish, there has to be a way to govern where the people don't hate you so much that they rebel against you and try to kill you, but you can still do your own power hungry thing. Luckily for us, there is a way and a descendant of Riplakish named Morianton shows us how to do it. The people killed Riplakish and drove out his descendants, and we aren't told what kind of system of government they had after that, other than Riplakish's family remained outcast for "the space of many years." I suggest that even though the people killed Riplakish, the next ruler was also just as oppressive and here's why: First, from the death of Riplakish to the time Morianton took over, there were many years, both because there were many years as outcasts and then many years of war, so it was a long time. But it says in verse 10 that it wasn't until Morianton became king so many years after Riplakish that "he did ease the burden of the people, by which he did gain favor in the eyes of the people, and they did anoint him to be their king." I saw this point when I thought, "why would Morianton fight so hard against a people only to ease their burdens once get became king?" Usually it's the opposite, a violent ruler overthrows a peaceful government only to instate hardship, this was sort of the reverse of that model. A government of unknown standing was overthrown by a man who instated peace and prosperity, that doesn't make any sense if the government he overthrows is also peaceful and prosperous, it only makes sense in the perspective of a still oppressive government. Maybe it wasn't as bad as Riplakish, but it was still worse than what Morianton envisioned, and apparently the people were so pleased with the lives they were leading under the rule of Morianton that they "anointed" him to be their king, even though by victory he had already become such. Interesting concept there. Morianton was a just ruler "and the people became exceedingly rich under his reign," but does that make him personally a righteous man? Verse 11 says explicitly, "and he did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms; wherefore he was cut off from the presence of the Lord." In an October 2001 general conference talk entitled "The Seventh Commandment: A Shield" Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, "Moreover, the foregoing trends are further accelerated by the fashionable nonjudgmentalism which excuses whatever wrong individuals do- as long as they do anything else commendable. After all, didn't Mussolini make the trains run on time? Violators of the seventh commandment may still make useful contributions, but they pay a hidden, personal cost. Of King Morianton we read, 'He did (deal justly with his) people, but not (with) himself because of his many whoredoms.' Apparently a fair, no-respector-of-persons leader, Morianton did not respect himself! His self-inflicted wounds were masked by the outward ornamentation of riches and buildings." Pretty good insight into how a leader can be both just to other and lax with their own personal standards. Maybe this pushes them into the "managerial" type of leadership as opposed to the inspirational type of leadership.

10:13-34 - I'm totally out of time, but the rest of the chapter is spent in a back and forth struggle for power for the next several generations, with many would be rulers spending their whole lives in captivity. HN had some interesting insights on having captive kings instead of killing them, like I would expect. I'm out of time so I'm going to copy and paste it here:

"The insane wars led to complete annihilation on both sides, with the kings the last to go. We've mentioned that before. The same thing had happened earlier in the days of Akish when the population was reduced to thirty people (Ether 9:12). This all seems improbable to us, but two circumstances peculiar to Asiatic warfare explain the phenomenon which is parallel everywhere. First, every war is strictly a personal contest between kings. It must continue until one of the kings has fallen or is taken. Second, things are so arranged that the king must be the very last to fall, so in that case, there's going to be extermination. The whole army exists for the sole purpose of defending his person—the shield wall that you read about in the Eddas. This is clearly seen in the game of chess, as we mentioned before. All the pieces are expendable except the king who can never be taken. Moghadam, a Hindu expert on chess, says, "The shah in chess is not killed and does not die. The game is terminated when the shah is pressed into a position from which he cannot escape [Shāh māt means 'the chief is dead']. This is in line with all good traditions of chess playing, and back of it the tradition of capturing the king in war rather than slaying him whenever this could be accomplished."

You'll recall the many instances in the book of Ether in which kings were kept in prison for many years but not killed. This is the code of medieval chivalry. Even so, Shiz was willing to spare all of Coriantumr's subjects if he could only behead Coriantumr. That was chess. That was typical."