By Steven Montgomery
Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009
Connor Boyack pointed out the problem in his excellent article, “The Problematic Inward Vessel.” A major point made that it was Nephites, dissenting Nephites, and not Lamanites per se, who were responsible for inciting the Lamanites to go to war against the Nephites.
Additionally Connor points out [emphasis is mine]:
Time and time again, individuals and groups from within the Nephite nation aspired for power, and when they couldn’t obtain it by force or persuasion, broke away from the group and through various means incited the Lamanites to riot and war against them. In light of the view these details present, the reader soon learns that the Lamanites in many cases were mere pawns in a war of propaganda, corralled and controlled by power-seeking authoritarians. Many of the examples above explain in specific detail the deceit and propaganda used to sway an otherwise neutral Lamanite populace.
But these dissenting Nephites didn’t just attempt to manipulate Lamanite opinion out of the blue. Much Insight can be gained by studying the Lamanite claim to legitimate power and authority, and by understanding that their claim went all the way back to Laman and Lemuel’s quarrel with Nephi–which was over the right to rule:
Yea, they did murmur against me, saying: Our younger brother thinks to rule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people. –2 Nephi 5:3
Later in the Book of Mormon this original claim recurs 3 more times:
1. “[The Lamanites believed that Nephi] had taken the ruling of the people out of their hands.” –Mosiah 10: 12, 15
2. ” For behold, your fathers did wrong their brethren, insomuch that they did rob them of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them . . . And behold now, I am a bold Lamanite; behold, this war hath been waged to avenge their wrongs, and to maintain and to obtain their rights to the government; and I close my epistle to Moroni.” –Alma 54: 17, 24
3. “And I write this epistle unto you, Lachoneus, and I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs. I am Giddianhi.”–3 Nephi 3:10
So why did Mormon feel it necessary to include this “right to rule” claim in the Book of Mormon? I posit that Marxism seems to offer a perfect parallel here. For it is the basic doctrine of Marxism that a state of war exists which primarily revolves around this “right to rule.” As Dr. Fred C. Schwarz explained it:
What is Marxism-Leninism? Stripped to its barest essentials, Marxism is the doctrine of the universality of class warfare, and Leninism is the doctrine of the historic role of the Communist Party to consummate the universal class war in world Communist victory. The basic doctrine of Marxism-Leninism is that a state of war exists and that the Communist Party has been created to win this war. The war was originally discovered, not declared, by Karl Marx. It is between two classes of society which he called the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is the class of property ownership, the class that owns the means of production. The proletariat he defined as the class of wage labor. Between these two classes, Marx claimed to discover a state of war . The bourgeoisie desires profit; the proletariat desires high wages. If wages go up, profits come down. If profits go up, wages come down. Thus there is a fundamental conflict between these two classes. This conflict Marx called the class war.
Marx taught that the bourgeoisie is the established class in Capitalist society. It has created the State as an instrument to oppress and exploit the proletariat. In reaction the proletariat creates the Communist Party to wage war against the State. Thus the class war manifests itself as war between the Communist Party and the State. With the progress of history, the Communist Party has come to power in Russia, China, and Eastern Europe. The bourgeoisie remains in power in America and her associated allies. Thus the class war has transferred itself from the national to the international plane. The fundamental doctrine of Marxism, therefore, is that Russia and America are at war; that China and America are at war— not that they could be at war; not that they might be at war; not that they will be at war; but that they are at war. This war is historically declared; it is universal; it encompasses every aspect of society; in it there can be no vestige of truce. The Communists did not choose it; they simply recognized it. Their duty is to prosecute the war to total and complete victory. (Dr. Fred C. Schwarz, You Can Trust The Communists: To Be Communists, chapter 1.)
In the 1999 movie, “Wild Wild West,” the U.S. President (Grant) played by Kevin Cline, stated a couple of lines which is germane to this whole discussion of dissent and this Marxist state of war which exists. Upon President Grant being surprised that the arch-villain had been planning for and waging war against the United States he stated: “I didn’t know that we were at war. You have me at a great disadvantage.”
At this moment a similar war is being waged against the United States of America. A war in which prevailing ignorance of its existence has put our country at a similar disadvantage. It is time to “awake” and arouse” ourselves to a sense of our “awful situation” (see Ether 8:24).
—–
Next week this “Secret Combinations” series continues with a look at the aims, methods, strategy, tools, etc., used by the Secret Combinations in the Book of Mormon.
Heavenly Banner 