Hereditary Monarchy vs Kingdom of Heaven

We commonly accept that the kingdom of heaven is organized along familial hierarchies. In some sense, God is legitimately our God because he is our Heavenly Father. The priesthood authority is often passed from father to son. 

Likewise on earth, we have a tendency to organize ourselves into tribes which are often defined by descendancy from a patriarchal figure. The nation of Israel is all the descendants of Jacob/Israel. The tribe of Judah is all the descendants of Judah. The Edomites are all the descendants of Esau/Edom. The Nephites are all the descendants of Nephi. etc. But this tribal association is solely an earthly phenomenon, because the patriarch dies. In heaven, the patriarch is alive and can rule his tribe, but on earth he dies, and someone else needs to take the seat of authority, at least if we are not to devolve into very small familial units whenever a grandfather dies. 

There is a heavenly order when the patriarch rules over his direct descendants, but what legitimacy is there for an uncle to rule over his brother's descendants, or for one who is distantly (if at all) related to the members of a tribe to rule, and moreover, to pass the authority to rule over those he is not related to down to his sons and heirs? We see many instances of the ruler taking on the name of the patriarch, in order to put on the air of the heavenly order or things, as when the kings of the Nephites are all called Nephi (Jacob 1:11), the rulers of Egypt are all called Pharaoh after the father of that nation (Abr 1:25-26), and even in Rome all the emperors were called Caesar after the founder of the empire. In the middle ages hereditary succession and primogeniture were called the divine right of kings. 

But all this putting on airs of the heavenly order is merely a counterfeit of the heavenly order, and because it is a counterfeit, it is easily perverted into an evil practice. These issues are carefully considered in Mosiah chapter 29, and he concludes, "because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you." (Mosiah 29:16) A famous historical example of the failure of hereditary rule is the five good emperors of Rome, when Rome had five good emperors in a row, which is so difficult to accomplish because hereditary succession tends to hand authority from one who has worked hard to earn it down to one who has been raised in privilege and who often abuses his unearned authority. The first four of the five good emperors (Neva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius), kept the form of hereditary succession while actually placing a good and worthy successor on the throne, by formally adopting the chosen successor, so that he could be the son legally even if he was not truly a hereditary son. When the fifth and most famous emperor, Marcus Aurelius, broke with this legalistic fiction of hereditary succession, and let his real son, Commodus, take the throne, the result was unspeakably bad.

If we consider that hereditary succession might not be a legitimate ordering of earthly authority, can we find any scriptural support for doubting it? Certainly for the most common form of hereditary succession, primogeniture or passing authority to the firstborn son, there are many counter-examples in the scriptures, such as Jacob, Joseph, Nephi, Saul, David, Solomon, etc. So even if primogeniture is a pattern in heaven, since Jesus Christ is the firstborn of the Father, it is not therefore to be blindly copied in earthly succession. 

What about hereditary succession in general? Is it just for only one descendant of the patriarch to have rule over the entire tribe after the patriarch's death? To answer this question, I will go to the most fundamental doctrine of Christ and Christianity, and observe the pattern we find there. In John 3, Christ himself teaches, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." As we said at the beginning, God rules us because he is our Father. What happens when we are born again? We become the children of Christ. 

"And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." (Mosiah 5:7)

Christ is King of kings, and Lord of Lords, but kings exert their authority through power, violence, and force, usually over their enemies. In like manner Christ will need to exert authority over those who decide to be his enemies. "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Cor 15:25-26) Christ will subdue all things, but we seek not to be his enemy, nor even his servant, but to be born again as his sons and daughters. And when he has subdued all things, then he can cease to reign, because the heavenly order is restored. "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." But then Christ is both the father and the son (Mosiah 15:2-4), being the son of heavenly father, and also the spiritual father of all those in the kingdom of heaven.

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." (1 Cor 15:24)

The whole purpose of Christ being king is for him to put down all earthly authority. In this respect no earthly system can be considered to have the mandate of heaven. God may choose kings such as Cyrus or David to bring about his will on earth, but he is clear that we should have no king other than him.  Moses and Mosiah instituted a minimalist government, with no executive, traditional laws which required no legislature, and only judges to resolve disputes. When the Israelites wanted a king instead of judges for their government, this is what God said about it. "And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." (1 Sam 8:7) 

When the need for all rule and authority and power is over, what remains? The only ruling power left is the love and respect between parent and child. And when Christ no longer needs to reign as king, what does he do? That is, a kings reigns, but what verb do we use to describe what fathers do? We do not choose our parents or our children on earth, so your father is your father simply because he is your father. Perhaps this is why the Father states, "I am" (your father).

Refuting the Gospel of Inclusion

 In church meetings, many of the comments were using the words of the enemy. Words like "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion". These are words invented by the enemy and used to subvert well-meaning Christians into believing in their works. They work so well at that task because of the conservative mind-set, which is all about conserving the status quo, or in other words, whatever the progressives were able to convince us to do last year. They convince us by subverting our language, and using words which sound good to advocate for perverse and sinful things. And they are effective at this because few conservatives understand their own morality well enough to be able to form a rational line of thought which can refute the perverseness of the language.

"No unclean thing can enter his kingdom." (3 Nephi 27:19, Alma 11:37, 1 Nephi 15:33, Alma 40:26, 1 Nephi 10:21, Alma 7:21, Moses 6:57, Rev 21:27) This is an extremely exclusionary statement, which is repeated many time in the scriptures. How do we reconcile this with the popular notion of "Let us all come unto Christ"? (e.g. Benson, April 1988) I call this a popular notion, because it is never stated unqualified in the scriptures. Instead, he says, "Come unto me, all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Or "repent and come unto me" (2 Nephi 28:32). It is certainly true that the invitation to come unto Christ is extended to all (Alma 5:33), but the "all" is always qualified as those who are willing to repent and change themselves, for if they come and are not willing to repent, they will not be received. "Repent, and I will receive you." (ibid) 

One of the most inclusive sounding scriptures is 2 Nephi 26:24-28.

24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.
25 Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.
26 Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.
27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.
28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.

This sounds very inclusive. But again the "come unto me" is qualified with the symbolic buying of milk and honey without money. Does he say unto any, "Depart from me?" Actually, he does.

Matt 7:23 "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity"
Matt 25:41 "Depart from me, ye cursed"

He does not command any that they should depart from the synagogues, but he does blot the names of those who will not repent out of the church and out of the book of life. "Whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people." (Alma 26:32 but the whole chapter is important to understand both the inclusionary and exclusionary nature of the doctrine of Christ.)

The first principles of the gospel are faith and repentance. Repentance means changing who you are and putting off your sinful nature. We all have sinful natures we need to put off. And repentance comes before the principle of baptism, which is the ordinance whereby we make you a member of the church. Those who do not repent are not to be received into the church, and those members of the church who sin and repent not are to be excommunicated.

To state the matter shortly, the doctrine of Christ is not about who you are now. It is about who you are willing to become. If you are coming in order to be a gay follower of Christ, or a trans follower of Christ, or a golfer follower of Christ, you are cleaving to your sinful ways, and you will be rejected by Christ and should be rejected by the church. Those who come unto Christ must lay everything they are on the altar, and simply be a follower of Christ, becoming whatever he tells them to be. You can come as you are, but don't expect to stay that way. (e.g. Holland, April 2017)

What is a "little horn"

In Daniel 8, a beast (kingdom) is described as a he-goat with a single notable horn (king) which defeats a previous great kingdom, and when grown strong, is broken (dies) and is replaced by four notable horns toward the four winds. If you know your history at all, this is a clear allegory for the kingdom of Alexander the Great. He came from the west (Greece) and conquered the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. Then at the height of his power, he suddenly took sick and died, leaving his kingdom to "the strongest". His generals fought over the succession and eventually stabilized into four kingdoms: Ptolemy ruled Egypt in the south, Seleucus ruled Persia and everything east, Antigonus ruled Greece in the west, and Cassander ruled in the north over Thracia and parts of Asia minor.

While the allegory is clearly depicting ancient events (to us; they were still in Daniel's future), the angel tells Daniel "at the time of the end shall be the vision." This is a pattern in Hebrew revelation, in which events in old times are also types for events in end times. Thus the vision refers to multiple events at different times, and by studying the past events we know about, we can learn more about the characteristics of future events.

The next thing in Daniel's vision is a little horn which comes out of (is a descendant of) one of the four, and takes away the daily sacrifice. We might think of notable descendents such as Demetrius or Pyrrhus, but these people did not attack Jerusalem. And the horn is "little" instead of "notable" like the four horns. The person who fits the description of the little horn is Antiochus, king of the Seleucid empire, and his wars with the Jews are described in the books of the Maccabees. He is a wicked and prideful man, and caused the temple to be desecrated, forced Jews to eat pork, and many other things which I will not recount. He did not win great battles, even though he called himself a god. Basically, he was a weak man who came to power by inheritance, who boasted much, and accomplished little other than wicked deeds. This is the character of a "little horn".

I conclude by quoting Jordan Peterson, "And if you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of."

Why I did not join "The People Restored" Private Membership Community

First, The People Restored is a group with a very excellent statement of principles. In fact, I heartily endorse all the principles in the preamble to their agreement. The are strongly worded, and I think many other organizations would benefit from adopting their principles and even their specific wording of those principles. 

A few examples are: 

• "We see natural rights as immutable and protect them in our community."
  
  
• "We live lives according to objective morality and we acknowledge our dependence on that Creator. We speak openly of faith."
  
  
• "we believe that restrictions, regulations, and taxation on markets should be minimized and removed where possible."
  
  
• "We believe that the traditional family—father, mother, son, and daughter—is the fountainhead from which community, commerce, and civilization spring."
  
  
• "In our community, a family household is seen as a member unit."

There are many other great principle in the preamble, which I live by, and none which I object to. So why would I not want to join with them? Well, the devil is in the details, or the implementation.

The most obvious objection I have to their implementation is their monocorporate fascination with Goldbacks and the company which produces this private currency. Their selling spiel includes the assertion that all members agree to be partially paid in Goldbacks, and they assert that this provides a protection against a government imposition of some future currency we might object to. 

I find this requirement personally objectionable, because I believe in the freedoms they espouse in their preamble. It would be foolish of me to tie myself to one particular corporation who could go out of business at any time, and render my ability to keep the agreement null and void. It would be more in line with conservative values, and free-market economics, to require partial payment in gold or silver, which could be standardized coins issued by a government or a private organization. Those who buy and sell gold and silver coins already deal in both types. Goldbacks could also be a recognized alternative under such a rule. Such a rule also has the advantage of agreeing with the constitution when  it specifically names gold and silver as legal tender, and with current Utah law, which recognizes gold and silver as legal tender, and exempts them from sales taxes. Unfortunately, Goldbacks are not exempted from sales tax, because they do not contain at least 50% gold or silver.

But furthermore, if one actually reads their full membership agreement, the requirement to use Goldbacks is not actually there. In this way, their marketing is in conflict with the actually agreement. The only thing regarding currency in the agreement is the phrase in section 3 (Principles and Requirements of the Community): "Accepting, at least partially, approved local currency as a payment for services." There is no definition of what "approved local currency" actually means, and no advocacy for the use of precious metals as currency. Since the contract gives all power to the three board members to make any and all changes to the contract, without any approval by the members, the definition of "approved local currency", which seems to currently be Goldbacks, if we believe the marketing, could be changed at any time at the whim of the board members. If we accept what they say on their website, "All of our members accept and use Goldbacks," then we must also accept that if they change their minds and say that all of our members must accept and use a CBDC, then they can do that at any time without changing the contract (which would at least require notification to the membership). There are no limits in the contract stopping them from doing that, nor any limitations on what they say their "approved local currency" could be.

Personally, I do not think the same people who wrote the preamble would change their "approved local currency" to a government mandated CBDC. But I do find it disingenuous that they would so strongly and prominently state that members are required to use Goldbacks, when the contract does not actually require that. And while I don't believe they would do such a thing, nothing in the contract actually prevents them from doing such a thing, and accepting their assertion that members are required to use Goldbacks sets a dangerous precedent for interpreting the contract in exactly such a manner.

While that is my biggest personal objection to their membership contract, I also found a couple other disturbing clauses when I read through the entire contract. I don't think that anyone should sign a contract without actually reading the entire document, and I'm surprised that other people would not notice and object to these clauses.

In section 12 (Privacy), we find this clause:

"All Members agree that the Community is not obligated to keep any Members’ conduct confidential from appropriate or compelled government reviews and that the Community may respond as appropriate or necessary to government inquiries or demands."

I am disturbed that an organization which claims to regard privacy highly would so easily abandon that privacy to government in their fine print. This clause contradicts their own principle (quoted from section 3): "Respect privacy and data privacy of Members in the Community, only utilizing data obtained in business as necessary for the business purposes."

In section 13 (Indemnification and Release), we find this clause:

"each Member agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Community and its other Members from conduct or wrongdoing (including without limitation negligence, reckless behavior, willful misconduct, criminal actions, actions that breach agreements, or actions that otherwise violate the law) of the Member that harms or causes liability to accrue to the Community or its other Members"

I don't think merely "disturbing" is enough to describe this clause. Do we really want to hold the community harmless against criminal action, breach of contract, and other actions which violate the law? Not only do I not want to do that, they don't want me to either. Later in the same section is this clause:

"Each Member releases the Community of any legal or other liability, and each Member agrees to not pursue claims or actions against other Members unless such claims or actions arise from breach of contract between the Members, willful or intentional misconduct, or criminal conduct."

So which is it? The contract requires me to hold members harmless for criminal actions and breach of agreements, and also, it explicitly allows me to pursue actions against other members for criminal actions and breach of contract. This is an explicitly self-contradictory contract. 

And that is beside the fact (which could possibly be excused as standardized boilerplate legalistic nonsense), that it contradicts their own statements of principles and requirement for members (quoted from section 3 again): "Being honest and acting with integrity in dealings with others, both within the community and without."

This leads me to distrust, to at least a small extent, that the leaders of this organization are living up to the noble principles declared in the preamble. Of course none of us are perfect, and we all sometimes fail to live up to the highest principles we aspire to. But, this organization has a contract which does not live up the principles it sets forth in its own preamble. It violates those principles in the actual statement  of the contract, and in their published methods of implementing the contract. And because I agree with its principles, I cannot in good conscience sign such a contract. 

Nephi was justified in killing Laban

Brother Renlund recently brought up the topic of Nephi slaying Laban, and stated, “No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory.” [Renlund, Oct 2022 General Conference, A Framework for Personal Revelation] Since the brethren themselves are not aware of the simple and clear scriptural answer to this issue, I feel inspired to publish it, so that we need not continue philosophizing and agonizing over that which the Lord has already explained in excruciating detail.

The scriptural explanation of the law under which Nephi was acting is laid out in D&C section 98. There are many treasures of knowledge in this section, but the treasure we are studying begins in verse 23, where the Lord says, “Now, I speak unto you concerning your families…” As we shall see, these passages of scripture concern issues of self defense and and the protection of our own lives and our family’s lives, including securing our physical safety, and the safety of our possessions. We begin with the condition, “if men will smite you, or your families.” My opinion is that we are justified in defending ourselves and our families to the best of our abilities at all times, so the word “smite” here implies to me that men have overcome our attempt to defend ourselves and succeeded in doing some sort of violent harm to us or our families. This could include murder, assault, beating, rape, theft, or other violent crimes.

You may disagree with me on the extent one can or should use violence in self-defense, and that is fine, because the main issue which the Lord addresses in these scriptures is not self-defense, but instead he is addressing the topic of revenge. In other words, the condition is that violent harm has been done to you or your family, overcoming any attempts to resist, and the question is, what do you do next in response? And the Lord answers, “if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded”. The Lord affirms that we should not seek revenge for offenses committed against us, but that we should bear it patiently, and even forgive the enemies who commit such offenses against us. Vengeance is something the Lord reserves for himself, as the Righteous Judge, whose omniscience allows him to know all the circumstances by which men are led to commit such wickedness. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” [Romans 12:19] “But of you it is required to forgive all men.” [D&C 64:10]

There are many scriptures exhorting us to love and forgive our enemies. For example, Romans 12:20-21 tells us, “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” And D&C 64:11 says, “Ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds,” which hearkens back to instances in the Old Testament where people actually speak those words to their enemies (1 Sam 24:12).

But I think the most remarkable condemnation of revenge is the next verse in D&C 98, verse 24, “But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.” This is a truly incredible statement from the Lord. If you are the sort of person who seeks revenge on your offender, then whatever was done to you is accounted (retroactively!) as a just measure for the violence you commit in seeking revenge. We should all ponder on the the implications of this verse, especially when we are feeling grudges and resentment for wrongs committed against us.

I will add my personal opinion again, that this does not mean that justice should not be carried out. We have a justice system which removes the need for retributive violence from the individual and assigns that responsibility to officials who do not have a personal stake in the crime. This allows them to be more fair in their judgments and punishments, and prevents cycles of revenge and retribution which can go on for generations in societies which do not have such an organized system of justice. Indeed, it can even make it easier for us to forgive, if we know that others will take care of seeing that justice is carried out. It is not your responsibility to see justice done for offenses against you, or even to imagine what sort of justice should be done. That is the responsibility of God, or of relatively unbiased people in the civil justice system. You are free to work on personal healing, forgiveness, and even showing mercy to your offenders, knowing that others have the responsibility for doing the justice and punishment. Anyone who escapes civil justice will face the justice of God when all men are judged according to their works.

Returning to D&C 98, consider again verse 23. We are to bear the first offense patiently, not even reviling in words against them. The word “revile” means “to criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.” Bearing it patiently does not imply keeping silent. It seems just to me to declare the crime, especially to the offender himself. Many non-violent offenses cause lasting harm and grudges without the offender even being aware that he has said or done something wrong. Therefore we should declare when we have been offended rather that harboring silent grudges, and give the offender a chance to consider that someone has been offended by his actions. But if they do not repent, we should bear it patiently, forgive, and in the case of non-violent offenses, even consider whether we are too eager in taking offense. To angrily revile would risk starting a cycle of insults and accusations back and forth which will add bitterness, resentment, and other psychological damage on top of the damage from the initial crime.

Verse 23 contains the word “once.” In 25 and 26, we see that we should also bear the second and the third offense patiently, without reviling. “And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred-fold. And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold.” That is a lot of rewards. When the Lord says “I will repay,” he means he will recompense those who forgive for the offenses against them, as well as repaying the offender for his crimes. Skipping ahead slightly, in verse 30, we read that if you continue to spare your enemy when he commits further offenses, God says, “And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” The only other scripture I can think of which promises such great rewards is the promise for paying tithing in Malachi 3. “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” If you want to live a blessed life, paying tithing and forgiving others would be very good things to do.

But something different happens after the third offense in D&C 98. Verses 27-28 say, “And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” After three offenses, if he has not been punished by the Lord (or by the justice system), you are justified in warning your enemy that you will be patient no longer. Of course this would be in a non-reviling, non-angry, non-insulting manner. And after all that, the Lord will apparently help us against our enemy, if he continues to offend.

Verse 29 reads, “And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands.” This is a direct link to the story of Nephi and Laban. Consider 1 Nephi 4:11, “And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.” The words “delivered him into thy hands” are used in both of these scriptures, showing that Nephi was aware of the Lord’s standard for justice. Nephi even counts three offenses in this verse. Laban sought to kill him. Actually he did that twice, having tried to kill his brothers (his family) as well. Laban did not hearken to the commandments of the Lord. This could imply that Nephi delivered a warning to Laban at some point. And Laban stole all his treasures. Of course, Nephi is also following the voice of the Spirit, just as Brother Renlund preaches in the talk referenced earlier. “And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands.” [1 Nephi 4:12]

In such cases, after three offenses, we have the choice to spare our enemy and receive the great blessings mentioned in verse 30, or to take justice into our own hands and reward our enemy according to his works, as stated in verse 31. “Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.” This is the Lord’s standard for justice, and though it may be a hard saying, it does justify killing in self-defense, if your life or your families lives have been endangered.

But if we have any doubt that Nephi was following the Lord’s standard of justice, as set forth in D&C 98, then just read the next verse (D&C 98:32) “Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi.” How could the Lord make this any more obvious? I think D&C 98 is a completely satisfactory explanation of the justice in the episode of Nephi and Laban.

The only thing I find slightly unsatisfactory, is that Nephi relates only two actual incidents of violence from Laban. The first incident is in 1 Nephi chapter 3, verses 11-14, when he tries to kill Nephi’s brother Laman. The second incident is in chapter 3, verses 22-27, when Laban tries to kill Nephi and all his brothers and steals their stuff. I usually count two attempted murders and one theft to get three offenses, but Nephi really only relates two incidences.

One possible way to harmonize this, is to consider another time in the Book of Mormon, where other Nephites speak of this same law and standard of justice. In Alma 43:46, this same standard of justice is briefly stated. “For the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.” This scriptures shows that this law was well known among the Nephites and taught from generation to generation. But it is possible that the version given to Nephi and the Nephites was a “two strikes and you are out of patience” instead of the “three strikes” given in D&C 98. However you interpret the events, it is clear that Nephi had lived up to the Lord’s standard of justice in slaying Laban.

If you continue reading D&C 98, verses 33-38 teach that this same standard of justice applies between nations, just as it applies between individuals. We should read again the remarkable statement in verse 24, and ponder about what the Lord thinks of the wars of retribution our own nation has recently waged against its enemies. Indeed, we are told that we should not go out to battle until the Lord commands it, and if we obey his commands, the Lord will fight our battles. [D&C 98:36-37, D&C 105:14]

The rest of section 98 repeats this standard of justice a third time, this time adding what we should do if the enemy repents of his trespass, which is to forgive him each time (until seventy times seven).

When I finally found this explanation in D&C 98 and the clear declarations from the Lord that this applies directly to Nephi, frankly I was amazed that church members, including myself, have agonized for so long, and continue to agonize, over the justice of Nephi killing Laban. And then I wonder how many other great truths are clearly stated in the scriptures, but our minds are too darkened to see them?

British Slavery Compensation debt

The Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished the slave trade in the United Kingdom and British Empire. The fines imposed were not enough to deter all trading, so the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811 made the crime a felony. Since slavery was still legal, it became necessary to distinguish between legal slaves who were imported before 1807 from slaves who were imported illegally after that Act. This incited British colonies to register slaves, and in 1819 a centralised Office for the Registry of Colonial Slaves was established in London.

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery in the British Empire. (After a 6-year apprenticeship period, and except in certain colonies controlled by the East India company, where slavery was abolished int 1843.) Presumably to make this politically feasible, the act allowed for 20 million pounds to be paid in compensation to slave owners. The payments were managed by the Slave Compensation Commission, and their records form a complete census of slave ownership in the British Empire in the 1830s.

The records from the commission and previous registrations are kept at the Legacies of British Slave-ownership site and at the National Archives) Another source for information is the book “The Price of Emancipation” by Nicholas Draper.

The National Archives site includes this description in their summary of the data:

“In 1834 slavery was abolished in British colonies under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. This Act also provided for a sum of £20 million to compensate slave proprietors. Its distribution was entrusted to a Slave Compensation Commission which began to meet in October 1833 and included representatives of the Colonial Office and the slave registry. It worked on data collected by assistant colonial boards of compensation nominated by the governor in each colony, and compensation was allowed on slaves appearing on the books of the slave registry on 1 July 1835. Actual payment of the claims was made by the National Debt Office. 

The commission was terminated at the end of 1842, but one of the commissioners was appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon outstanding claims. At the end of 1845 all money unappropriated reverted to the public purse. The registry continued in existence until 1848.

(Note: according to the Legacies for British Slaveownership organization, £18.7M had been awarded by the end of 1837, and with expected in the intervening years, so it is unlikely there was much, if any, to revert to the public purse in 1845.)

Why do people care? 

In February 2018 the British Treasury published a tweet saying the debt for the £20 million was not paid off until 2015. The tweet was later deleted, but memorialized and quoted in articles such as this.

“Millions of you helped end the slave trade through your taxes” 

“Did you know? In 1833, Britain used £20 million, 40% of its national budget, to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.”

What does it actually mean for a 1833 debt to be paid off in 2015? Can we follow the money for nearly 200 years? Much of the hype since the tweet has been bemoaning that the money was paid to slave owners, rather that as reparations to slaves themselves. We can chalk that up to unfortunate political expediency at that time. But how and why were we continuing to pay off a debt for that until 2015, and who were we paying all that money to?

FOI question on the payoff in 2015

A 2018 Freedom of Information request asked “Is it true in 1833 Britain used 40% if it budget to buy freedom for slaves in the Empire? Can you confirm that the borrowed money for the Abolition Act was only paid off in 2014?”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680456/FOI2018-00186_-_Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833_-_pdf_for_disclosure_log__003_.pdf

The Slavery Abolition Act (1835) Loan was rolled over into the Government’s gilt programme, ultimately into an undated gilt, the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after). 

The term ‘undated’ refers to the fact that this gilt was issued with an earliest potential redemption date of 1957, but it was not compulsory for the gilt to be redeemed at this date. The 4% Consolidated Loan was redeemed on 1 February 2015, as part of the Government’s decision to modernise the gilt portfolio by redeeming all remaining undated gilts.

FOI question on interest paid on the 1835 loan.

Another FOI question asked for more details on the loan, including the interest rate and amount of interest paid on it.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_paid_per_year_to_repay_sl

The 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after) redeemed on 1 Feb 2015. Its redemption value was ₤218M. This does not include any previous interest payments.

While the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) load was ultimately repaid through the redemption of the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after), between 1833 and 1927 (when the 4% Consolidated Loan was first issued), the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan would have been converted into new stock. At this point, holders of the original loan would have been offered a choice of redeeming their holdings or converting it into the new stock. However, we do not hold records of their decisions, so it is not clear how many holders, if any chose to convert their holdings in to the new stock. For this reason, it is not possible for HM Treasury to determine how much of the 4% Consolidated Loan was made up of Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan, or how much was left on the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan in 2015. It is therefore not possible for us to provide the total sum required to repay the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan. 

HM Treasury does not hold any detailed information on the structure or amounts of repayments made under the original Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan; however it is likely that this would have been through twice-yearly interest payments, similar to the current structure of gilts. HM Treasury does not hold information on the total interest paid on the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan.

What was included in the 4% Consolidated Loan?

https://www.history.com/news/6-longstanding-debts-from-history

In 2014, the British government announced plans to pay down a chunk of debt dating all the way back to the early 18th century. The bills existed in the form of perpetual bonds left over from the “Four Percent Consolidated Loan,” which Prime Minister Winston Churchill had issued in 1927 to refinance national war bonds from World War I. These “4% Consols,” however, included more than just World War I debt. Thanks to decades of government refinancing and consolidation, the stew of old bills also contained borrowing from the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars, an 1847 loan to assist Ireland during its Great Famine, and even money paid to compensate slaveholders when Britain’s Slavery Abolition Act was passed in 1835. By far the oldest debt was from a government bailout that followed the so-called South Sea Bubble, a 1720 financial panic caused by rampant stock speculation in Britain’s South Sea Company. In a 2014 press release, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were over 11,000 bondholders still collecting interest on the centuries-old debt. At the time, the government had not made an effort to redeem any of its perpetual bonds for 67 years.

(The other debts described in this article are also interesting to read about.)

What we know about the original loan

We do know (according to wikipedia) that the British government provided £5 million, and got a loan in 1835 for £15 million from bankers Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore. Wikipedia says “£20 million amounted to 40% of the Treasury's annual income or approximately 5% of the British GDP.”

We can surmise from their inclusion in the 4% Consolidated Loan, that the gilts issued in 1835 were perpetual bonds, with no maturity date. We don’t know the interest rate originally negotiated, but since being included with the Consolidation Loan in 1927 it was 4%.

The Rothchilds were bankers, practicing fractional reserve finances, so there is no need to assume they actually had that much money to lend. They just have to issue bank notes promising to pay up if anyone asks for the money.

More on consols

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/07/consols-the-never-ending-bonds/

Consols are bonds without a maturity date. “Consols were first introduced in 1751 at 3.5% and have been in circulation ever since, although interest rates have varied. In 2015, the British government decided to redeem all consols in circulation.” (The FRED site above has information on the interest rates of consols over the years.)

Effects of the loan

https://www.bondvigilantes.com/blog/2017/09/06/2nd-largest-bailout-british-history-economic-effects/

This research shows that the slavery compensation payouts resulted in, among other things, 10% inflation in 1836, about 4% in 1837-1839. Economically, this means that while the slave owners were being paid a windfall to invest in various industries (some are listed in the article), the people who did not own slaves paid for that windfall in lost buying power. Adding 5% to the the GDP resulted in 10% inflation.

A very rough guess at an answer

So in answer the question of how much was paid in interest and to whom, we can only guess with a very rough estimate. A 4% annual payout on £15M (£600k/year) from 1834 to 2014 (180 years) is £108M. That is aside from the principle amount of £15M, which was repaid in 2014 unless it was specifically requested to be redeemed at some earlier time by the debt holder. The principle receivers of this money were the Rothchilds and their banking heirs. They could have sold off some of their shares in this debt to others, of course, but they receive their compensation from that in the price of the sale.

Violence against the womb

Big Ocean Women speak of violence against women in these terms: "our first natural environment of the womb has become abused, violated, neglected, and ignored ... and we must acknowledge it."

Framing violence against women as violence against the womb brings the violent act of abortion into the picture, so I was curious about comparing abortion with the usual violent act against women, rape.

Here is a graph of the abortion rate (source)

Here is a graph of the rate rape (source)

The interesting thing here is that abortions are reported as rate per 1000, while rapes are reported at rapes per 100,000. They need completely different scales to talk about the rates.

Put in rather stark terms, then, the rate of self-inflicted violence against the womb is approximately 50 times higher than the rate of other-inflicted violence. In other words, if we compare frequency, there are 50 abortions for every 1 rape.

I think Big Ocean Women recognizes this reality when say, shortly afterward, that they are seeking to "safeguard the womb ... to protect it from objectification and violence, whether committed by others or self-inflicted." But even they do not point out the full scale of the violence.