Introduction: The Myth of Consent

Modern political theory rests heavily on a comforting claim: that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. In theory, this consent is renewed through elections, safeguarded by constitutions, and enforced by the rule of law. In practice, this framework collapses quickly under scrutiny. Once a government is established, its authority no longer rests on consent in any meaningful sense, but on settled power—police, courts, prisons, and military force. At that point, compliance is not voluntary; it is coerced.

This condition is best described as pacification by force: the maintenance of social order not by legitimacy, virtue, or covenant, but by the credible threat of violence. This is not an aberration of failed states or dictatorships. It is the normal end state of centralized governance. Remarkably, this reality is confronted directly in Mosiah 29, where King Mosiah articulates a political theology far more realistic—and far more pessimistic—than most modern democratic idealism.

Pacification by Force: A Structural Condition, Not a Moral Accident

Pacification by force does not require overt brutality. It requires only that the state possesses:

• A monopoly on legitimate violence
• The authority to define legality
• The capacity to enforce compliance selectively

Once these conditions are met, force recedes into the background, becoming implicit rather than explicit. Most citizens obey not because they consent in a meaningful sense, but because resistance is costly, futile, or criminalized. Law becomes indistinguishable from coercion, and legitimacy becomes indistinguishable from habit.

This is why modern governments can maintain the appearance of freedom while remaining fundamentally coercive. Force is rarely applied universally; it is applied selectively, just enough to remind the population that resistance is not an option.

[If you are reading this via the subscription email, please click here to visit this post on my website to help out my website stats.]

Mosiah 29: A Preemptive Rejection of Settled Power

Mosiah’s argument against kingship is not primarily moral; it is structural:

“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)

This is not a critique of monarchy as such, but of irreversible authority. Mosiah recognizes that once power is centralized and settled, the people are exposed to catastrophic risk. A righteous king may govern justly, but a wicked king—once enthroned—cannot be meaningfully resisted.

Mosiah does not assume that future rulers will be virtuous. He assumes the opposite. His political theology begins with a sober anthropology: men seek power, abuse it, and rarely relinquish it voluntarily.

The Failure of Democratic Legitimacy

Mosiah’s system of judges is often mischaracterized as an early endorsement of democracy. This is a mistake. Mosiah does not claim that majority rule produces righteousness. He explicitly warns that it does not:

“If the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you.” (Mosiah 29:27)

The point is not that democracy legitimizes power, but that distributed authority delays total collapse. Judges fragment enforcement. They slow tyranny. They make corruption more visible and more contestable. They do not eliminate pacification by force; they raise its cost.

Modern democratic governments fail precisely where Mosiah is most cautious. Elections do not meaningfully restrain power because:

• Elected officials routinely violate campaign promises
• Constitutional limits are reinterpreted, ignored, or suspended
• Fundamental rights are treated as privileges contingent on compliance
• Legal immunity shields officials from meaningful prosecution

Prosecution for treason, corruption, or violation of fundamental rights is exceedingly rare—not because such crimes are rare, but because the system judges itself.

Republican Forms and the Illusion of Safeguards

Republican government is often proposed as a remedy: representative institutions, separation of powers, written constitutions. Yet Mosiah’s warning still applies. Safeguards only function as long as they are enforced, and enforcement depends on those who benefit from violating them.

In practice:

• Courts defer to executive power
• Legislatures protect their own
• Bureaucracies operate beyond electoral accountability
• Emergency powers become permanent

The result is predictable: pacification by law replaces pacification by naked force, but the underlying coercion remains unchanged.

Mosiah anticipates this failure mode when he observes that once man becomes the ultimate judge, injustice becomes legalized. Appeals are internal to the system. Abuse becomes procedure. Force becomes righteousness by decree.

Local Government and the Problem of Scale

The only form of governance that approaches legitimacy, in Mosiah’s framework, is genuinely local government:

• Small enough to be visible
• Close enough to be accountable
• Weak enough to be resisted
• Embedded in shared moral culture

Yet even this remains aspirational. History offers few, if any, durable examples of local governments that remain democratic, republican, and strictly accountable over time. Scale corrupts. Distance insulates. Power settles. Pacification follows.

Mosiah does not promise a solution. He offers a warning.

Theological Implications: God Versus the State

At its deepest level, Mosiah 29 is not about political systems. It is about ultimate authority.

God governs by covenant, persuasion, and commandments. States govern by law, enforcement, and threat. When the state becomes absolute, it competes directly with God for obedience. Pacification by force is therefore not merely a political failure—it is a spiritual inversion, where conscience is subordinated to compliance, and righteousness is replaced by legality.

This is why Mosiah repeatedly insists that it is better to be judged of God than of man. Human judgment, once armed with force and shielded from accountability, becomes total.

Conclusion: Mosiah’s Uncomfortable Realism

Mosiah 29 dismantles the comforting myths of political legitimacy. It affirms what history relentlessly demonstrates:

• Consent is fleeting
• Power consolidates
• Safeguards erode
• Accountability disappears
• Force becomes normal

Pacification by force is not the exception. It is the default trajectory of centralized governance. Mosiah does not offer a utopia. He offers delay, decentralization, and moral warning, knowing full well that even these will fail when the people choose corruption.

---