Helaman 2

Hel. 2:1

1 And it came to pass in the forty and second year of the reign of the judges, after Moronihah had established again peace between the Nephites and the Lamanites, behold there was no one to fill the judgment-seat; therefore there began to be a contention again among the people concerning who should fill the judgment-seat.

Social: The important information of this verse is the empty judgment-seat. Not only is the seat empty, there is no clear successor. This is the recipe for social disorder, and the description of the disorder follows immediately. Mormon notes that there “began to be a contention.” While there have been assertions of traditional Nephite political control, there has been no elimination of the factions that are ideologically separate from the Nephite principles. These have arisen in the past, and they arise again. As long as there is a fundamental disunity in the land of Zarahemla, this conflict between the ways of the outside world and the ways of the traditional Nephite religio-political system will continue to erupt.

Textual: Mormon’s construction of his text continues to organize around year-markers. The last year marker ended with peace, and the peach continues into the forty second year with peace having been “established again.”

Chronological: The forty second year of the reign of the judges corresponds to 52 BC.

Hel. 2:2

2 And it came to pass that Helaman, who was the son of Helaman, was appointed to fill the judgment-seat, by the voice of the people.

Mormon gives us the fact of the seating of Helaman, but does not tell us how the people came to accept Helaman. Without understanding the underlying rules of Nephite politics, we might assume that there was an election and Helaman won. That would match our modern assumptions, but be contrary to everything the text tells us about the way Nephite politics worked.

Of course we have only speculation to fill in the background, but there are enough hints in Mormon’s test to make our speculation based upon a reasonable foundation. The first aspect of the seating of Helaman that we understand is that Helaman was not the only possibility. Who might have been the others?

The others are not names, but we know that a contention arose over the seating. In the beginning of the last seating of the chief judge, we saw that the fomenter of contention was Paanchi. While he was a son of the previous chief judge, and therefore had a reasonable lineal claim upon the seat, he also had a tremendous following. There were people willing to rebel against their government to support Paanchi (Helaman 1:7). Paanchi’s popular support rather suggests that he was aligned with the interests of that group, and that they were a group sufficiently opposed to the Nephite religio-political system that they would be willing to rebel against it. It is most likely that these are the same ideas that were accepted by the previous dissenters from the Nephites, a situation that led to the departure of Amalickiah and his group. This was a continuation of the same social conflict that has plagued Zarahemla for years, but it is intensifying. Even with the execution of Paanchi, the desires for division and overthrow continued among the people. It is certain that there were representatives of that faction who were proposed for the judgment seat.

What qualified one for the seat? As with the case of Paanchi, we should assume that the pretenders to the seat should have some lineal claim upon the seat. There may not have been a direct descendant to whom they could turn, but there would be other families who had some connection to a previously ruling family, or perhaps simply sufficient clout to attempt to place one of their clan on the seat.

It is this lineal connection that explains how Helaman is selected. Helaman is not of the direct line of those who had been sitting on the throne, though it is possible that they were related. Mormon never tells us whether there was a lineal connection between Alma the Younger and Nephihah who followed him on the chief judges seat. We know only that Alma selected him from among the elders of the church (Alma 4:16-17). It would not have been surprising, however, if there were a lineal connection, given the high value placed on kinship in the Nephite culture. In any case, Helaman is a candidate for the judgment seat because he is a descendant of Alma the Younger (his grandfather) who had been chief judge. Thus Helaman’s family has a claim on the judgment seat through a direct ancestor, even though that direct claim had to skip a generation of the more recent judges.

Helaman becomes the chief judge because he has the credentials to be in that position. He has a legitimate claim to the seat through his grandfather, and he is loyal to the Nephite ideals. Those ideals are still statistically dominant, even though there is obvious division in the society. That statistical majority is apparently sufficient to allow Helaman to achieve the voice of the people, and thus be seated.

Textual: The Book of Helaman is named for Helaman because he is the chief judge, and because his ascendance to that position creates a change in the ruling dynasty. Accordingly, the change in dynasty occasions a change in the “book” precisely because the official record of the rulers of the Nephites is organized by ruling dynasties.

Hel. 2:3

3 But behold, Kishkumen, who had murdered Pahoran, did lay wait to destroy Helaman also; and he was upheld by his band, who had entered into a covenant that no one should know his wickedness.

Kishkumen and his band had already decided to take decisive action against the seating of a new chief judge supporting the Nephite ideals when they murdered Pahoran II. Their political aims were not fulfilled then, and they undoubtedly hoped that the death of Pacumeni would allow their faction to rise in power. That hope was dashed with the seating of Helaman II. The force of their intent remained the same, and so they turned to a similar strategy to deal with Helaman II.

Hel. 2:4

4 For there was one Gadianton, who was exceedingly expert in many words, and also in his craft, to carry on the secret work of murder and of robbery; therefore he became the leader of the band of Kishkumen.

Hel. 2:5

5 Therefore he did flatter them, and also Kishkumen, that if they would place him in the judgment-seat he would grant unto those who belonged to his band that they should be placed in power and authority among the people; therefore Kishkumen sought to destroy Helaman.

The band of men who begin with Kishkumen is presented in a relatively rounded perspective by Mormon, though it is certain that Mormon considered them with disdain. Mormon tells us enough to understand that the band of Kishkumen was one of convenience at first, and was turned into a more formal organization by the ascendancy of a single charismatic leader, Gadianton. Gadianton is certainly a member of the Kishkumen’s society. How does he become the focal point of the group such that the modern designation for this group will be Gadianton robbers rather than Kiskumen robbers?

We may assume that Gadianton was charismatic, as Mormon describes him as using flattery to gain his position. Reading as much as we can into that word, we would have Gadianton as the charismatic leader who is able to sway men with his words and presence. Though Mormon does not tell us more than that Gadianton desired to sit on the judgment seat, that information may suggest that Gadianton also has clan credentials behind him. Kishkumen may have been a man taking action, but it does not appear that he had any legitimate claim to the seat, only that he was willing to use his nefarious talents to keep the seat open for someone with whom he agreed. Gadianton seems to have become that one, with his probable legitimate ability to make a claim on the seat, and his personal charisma to induce a following. Position and person would have conspired to have Gadianton supercede Kiskumen in Kishkumen’s own band.

Hel. 2:6

6 And it came to pass as he went forth towards the judgment-seat to destroy Helaman, behold one of the servants of Helaman, having been out by night, and having obtained, through disguise, a knowledge of those plans which had been laid by this band to destroy Helaman—

Mormon declines to tell us the background story of this servant. We learn that he had been in disguise in a location where he could hear of plans of the Kishkumen band, and that he was out at night. Past what Mormon tells us, there are other things we may learn. First is that he recognized Kishkumen. This indicates that his presence at a meeting where he could learn plans was sufficiently intimate to see faces and learn them. We must remember that there is no photography at this time, so recognition comes only through contact. Second, the fact that he was in disguise suggests an intent to lead a double life, which is the very definition of a spy. It is rather doubtful that that he was a spy on his own initiative, and it would appear that Helaman (or perhaps the previous chief judge whose brother was murdered) has instituted a plan of infiltration and spying.

We know that there was an organized movement on which to spy, but the fact that it was also apparently known in the height of government suggests that it was not as secret as Mormon made it appear. There were those who knew, and talked enough that the organization could be infiltrated, even if they had not ever given up Kishkumen as the murderer of Pacumeni I.

This spy has learned that there were plans afoot, and probably knew the day and time. Thus his being “out by night” was not an error, but a calculated attempt to thwart the plan.

Hel. 2:7

7 And it came to pass that he met Kishkumen, and he gave unto him a sign; therefore Kishkumen made known unto him the object of his desire, desiring that he would conduct him to the judgment-seat that he might murder Helaman.

In this verse, Kishkumen meets him and assumes him to be a member of the band. The servant renders some sort of sign. This could have been visual or oral. It might have been some performance with the hands, or it could have been as simple as a password. Whatever the form, it was an agreed upon non-random performance that would verify that the two people who met were of the same band. The sign was given.

The second presumption that we may make is that the servant of Helaman was recognizeable to Kishkumen while “out by night.” Further, there was some understanding that this man was indeed a servant of Helaman. Kishkumen either knew because of previous association or because of he was told in this instant that this person had access to Helaman.

Social: The judgment-seat is certainly a symbol of the authority of the sitting chief judge. It is was also certainly a “seat” in that it was a physical location on which the chief judge would sit while administering. However, it also appears that it is, by extension, the palace of the chief judge. The servant suggests that they go to the judgment seat in the middle of the night. The chief judge would not be sitting on the seat at this point, but would likely be in bed. It would be at this time that the murderer would have access to the chief judge with the fewest people around to stop him. Thus the judgment seat is not just type of chair, but it the building in which the judgments were rendered, and in this case, a reference to the residence of the chief judge.

Among the later Maya there was a separate building designated for the place of governance, the popol nah, or the “mat house.” The “mat” was the symbolic seating location for the Maya ruler, and the location of this particular “mat” was the building in which judgments (and other affairs of state) were rendered. The North Building in the quadrangle at Uxmal is a large and impressive popol nah (so indicated by the mat decorations on the building). In addition to the function as a popol nah, the North Building was also a kan nah or a “sky house” where visions were received. Lastly, it was a ch’ok-t-nah a “sprout-tree-house,” which is the term for the members of a lineage. (Schele, Linda and Peter Mathews. The Code of Kings. Scribner, New York, 1998, pp. 269-272.)

All of these features fit the general understanding we have of the Nephite judgment seat. It was a physical location where the ruler administered the land, it was a location where communication or revelation from God was received (when the prophet and ruler were the same person) and it was affiliated with a lineage, or the ruling dynasty. The one difference is our current assumption that it was also a residence.

Hel. 2:8

8 And when the servant of Helaman had known all the heart of Kishkumen, and how that it was his object to murder, and also that it was the object of all those who belonged to his band to murder, and to rob, and to gain power, (and this was their secret plan, and their combination) the servant of Helaman said unto Kishkumen: Let us go forth unto the judgment-seat.

Hel. 2:9

9 Now this did please Kishkumen exceedingly, for he did suppose that he should accomplish his design; but behold, the servant of Helaman, as they were going forth unto the judgment-seat, did stab Kishkumen even to the heart, that he fell dead without a groan. And he ran and told Helaman all the things which he had seen, and heard, and done.

Rather than bring Kishkumen into the judgment-seat, the servant slays Kishkumen. Instead of Kiskumen killing someone, we have Helaman’s servant killing someone. We have more sympathies with Helaman’s servant, but was he right? We do not know enough about the Nephite laws to entirely judge the servant, but we can make some assumptions based on the few facts that we have available.

After the killing of Kiskumen the servant runs to Helaman. This suggests that he had no qualms about telling Helaman what had happened. Indeed, there is not indication that there was any problem with the servant’s action. The salient points, were we to make a legal defense of the servant to his killing of Kishkumen are:

The servant is a trusted and officially sanctioned spy. He must be trusted to maintain absolute loyalty while engaging with those who are disloyal. Nothing assures this other than his word and character, and those were accepted by Helaman (by implication).
The disguise of the servant made him recognizeable to the band of Kishkumen before whom he had appeared in that disguise. However, it would make him unrecognizeable in the context of Helaman’s court, which was the identity being hidden. Thus Helaman’s servant could not have escorted Kishkumen to Helaman without revealing himself, and risking the flight and escape of Kishkumen.
Kishkumen was a traitor, and embarked on a murderous treachery. We know that Moroni held the power to execute traitors (Alma 46:34-35). This is apparently a law that remained with the Nephites, for Paanchi is put to death, and the reason would have been treason (Helaman 1:8). Thus the penalty for a traitor was death, and Helaman’s servant has the evidence of Kishkumen’s treason, and executes him.
The Nephite system did not require the independent witnesses that our modern system might. The word of the servant was sufficient proof of the treason and reason for the execution.

Hel. 2:10

10 And it came to pass that Helaman did send forth to take this band of robbers and secret murderers, that they might be executed according to the law.

Hel. 2:11

11 But behold, when Gadianton had found that Kishkumen did not return he feared lest that he should be destroyed; therefore he caused that his band should follow him. And they took their flight out of the land, by a secret way, into the wilderness; and thus when Helaman sent forth to take them they could nowhere be found.

The evidence of Kishkumen was sufficient to condemn the entire band, and the attempt was made to round them up. They escape, and Gadianton is placed in firm control of the group, now that the founder is not there to provide any kind of challenge to his leadership. We do not know what kind of record Mormon would have had to let him know that it was indeed Gadianton who organized the effective escape, but Mormon clearly credits Gadianton as the leader at this point, and from then on.

Variant: The first occurrence of Gadianton has a single “d” in the original and printer’s manuscripts. At this point, the original had Gaddianton with the doubled “d.” This was corrected in the Printer’s manuscript. This single/double “d” variation continues through the original, and all instances were corrected to the single “d” in the printer’s manuscript.

Hel. 2:12

12 And more of this Gadianton shall be spoken hereafter. And thus ended the forty and second year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.

Textual: The story of Gadianton has a temporary end at the end of the forty-second year, but the story is not over. Mormon is structuring this section of his account by years, and the ending of the year ends a part of the story. However, the characters from this band of Gadianton become important again, and Mormon foreshadows that importance even as he formally closes this chapter.

Hel. 2:13

13 And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.

Hel. 2:14

14 Behold I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but I mean the end of the book of Nephi, from which I have taken all the account which I have written.

Textual: These two verses tell us that Mormon’s conceptual use of “book” was similar to our own in that it could refer both to the book that is his source and the book that he is writing. When he writes that we will see more of Gadianton at the end of the book, he clarifies that he means the end of the book that he is writing, not his source book from Helaman.

We also have reinforced the information that Mormon structured his account prior to committing it to the plates. Mormon is making reference to text that he has not yet written as though it were written. This suggests that perhaps it has been written in some form on a more perishable material, and that it is being committed to the plates.

This ends a chapter in the 1830 edition.

Redaction: We can describe the conditions that surround some of Mormon’s decisions to make chapter breaks (see the analysis: Mormon and Moroni's Gross Structural Editing of the Book of Mormon; Chapters and Books in the commentary on Mosiah). They are most obvious when there is a change in the speaker, or when there is a shift from cited material. In this case, we have a puzzling chapter break that may actually tell us more about Mormon’s intent that it might appear.

Without worrying about the chapter break for the moment, let’s examine the general narrative structure of this section of Mormon’s text, covering our chapters 1-6:

From the beginning of the book of Helaman Mormon has been discussing two things, the cycles of contention and peace among the Nephites, and the particulars of the Kishkumen/Gadianton band.
Mormon ends the introduction of the Kishkumen/Gadianton band with a statement looking to the future text that will also discuss the Gadianton’s. That text is noted to be in the end of the plates of Nephi, rather than the end of the book of Helaman.
Mormon begins with an anecdote about people moving north, and spends a good deal of time discussing the building materials of this northern land and the extent of the population in the north.
At the end of the section about the northern lands we have a “real time” moralizing insertion where Mormon tells us what we learn from the briefly noted history.
At Helaman 3:17 Mormon explicitly returns to the historical framework discussing Lamanite invasions and successes, with Nephite retaliation.
We have the story of Nephi’s preaching to the Lamanites
Mormon discusses the takeover of Nephite government by the Gadiantons.

Including Mormon’s chapter breaks there is an interesting pattern. The end of Mormon’s first chapter comes with the introduction of Kishkumen/Gadianton. The end of the second chapter is the last item noted in our list, the overthrow of government by the Gadiantons. This gives us a potentially important parallel between the first and second chapters, where they both have contentions resulting in an episode with the Gadiantons. Is there anything else about the intervening information that is important?

The most anomalous information in Mormon’s second chapter is the narrative excursion north. It might be explained by simply noting that they went north. However, Mormon is writing a planned story on a difficult medium, and he does not elaborate details without a reason. So much of his “history” is so brief that any elaboration should scream at us that Mormon intends something important by the elaboration. We can get an idea of the anomalous nature of this northward excursion by comparing it to Mormon’s treatment of the journeys of Hagoth. That entire story, including two sailings and the departure of other peoples to the land northward covers only five verses (Alma 63:4-9). The northward journey in Helaman covers ten verses. The Hagoth section simply tells that the people went north, but they never heard from them, so they know nothing of them (Alma 63: 8). This story of a northward migration spends a great deal of time speaking details of the land northward.

As will be discussed in the commentary on the next chapter, Mormon describes this land northward with details that are more appropriate to his own time than to the precise events of the time period of his source. What happens structurally is a reference to the Gadiantons that looks forward to Mormon’s time. Then there is a discussion of details of the land northward, and finally a return to a parallel story of contention and the Gadianton’s. The thread would seem to tell us that there is a connection between this land northward and the surrounding text, and that connection would be the Gadiantons.

When Mormon ends the first chapter he has introduced the Gadianton robbers. He specifically mentions that these Gadiantons will become very important “at the end of the book.” With these phrases Mormon’s authorial attention is turned toward his own time. When he begins the next section he is still looking forward to his own day, but with the purpose of explaining the connection between these historical Gadiantons and those of his own time. As we will examine, Mormon ties this appearance of the Gadiantons with those of his own day, and will do so by positing a connection through this group who moved north. In order to make the connection, he must describe that land northward in such a way as to be easily understood, so that when we see the Gadiantons later we will know that they are associated both with that land and with these people who provide the tie between the apostate Nephites and the Gadiantons of that later time.

Because Mormon’s temporary focus is on his own day, he can more easily step out of the historical role and into his present-time moralizing on events. When Mormon returns his attention to the historical events, he begins again with the parallel theme of the first chapter – the cycle of contention and peace among the Nephites that escalating into an incident with the Gadiantons, a concept that is the result of the escalation of contentions in both chapters.

Mormon’s narrative structure tells us that his overarching purpose in these two original chapters (Mormon’s chapter one is our Helaman 1-2, Mormon’s second chapter is our Helaman 3-6) is to set up the idea that contentions lead to the Gadiantons, and the Gadiantons lead to ultimate destruction for at least some aspect of Nephite government. Of course this precisely parallels the events of Mormon’s own day, where the escalating contentions lead to the influence and presence of the Gadiantons, and that leads to the eventual total destruction of the Nephites. Mormon is intentionally telling us to look for the parallels between the events of his day and the events of the years just before the arrival of the Savior in the New World.