Culture: In verses 10–11 Benjamin differentiates himself from the kings who declared themselves divine; in verses 12–13, Benjamin contrasts his administration with that of the other kings with which the people would be familiar. John Welch points out that Benjamin is stressing that Nephite society is unique in opposing these common elements: “The use of dungeons or prisons was apparently tolerated in Israel (Jer. 37:15, 1 Ne. 7:14), generally in the land of Nephi (Mosiah 17:5), in the land of Ammonihah (Alma 14:18, 23), and among the Lamanites (Hel. 5:21); but by special dispensation, the use of prisons was not allowed in Zarahemla under King Benjamin or in other lands by special royal decrees (Alma 23:2).”
This decree against prisons in Alma 23:2 was a special protection for sons of Mosiah and other missionaries in Lamanite lands. That such a special decree was needed suggests that Lamanites more commonly used prisons or dungeons than the Nephites. There does not appear to be any significant difference in the usage of “dungeon” or “prison,” since both terms are applied to the same site (Alma 8:30).
In his speech at this point, Benjamin is reminding his people—who obviously know what prisons are without any explanation being needed—that he has spared them this form of punishment. Since we know that Benjamin’s reign has not always been peaceful, he had some other way of dealing with lawbreakers, most likely banishment. Words of Mormon 1:16 refers to defections to the Lamanites. While many of the defections to the Lamanites are voluntary, it would not be surprising if there were also involuntary banishments of certain individuals. Nevertheless, the nature of Benjamin’s speech will indicate that there remain in Zarahemla some who might still sympathize with the old government and religion, so any involuntary banishments were not the equivalent of a purge.
Likewise, enslavement had to be a real threat or Benjamin’s prohibition of it would carry not weight. In point of fact, both the Maya and the Aztec practiced slavery. For the Maya, slavery may have been practiced in both the Classic and Postclassic periods, depending on the interpretation of certain iconography. Archaeologist Sylvanus Morley writes:
Slavery seems to have been practiced in both the Classic [A.D. 250–800] and Postclassic stages, despite Bishop Landa’s [born 1524, died 1579] assertion that it was introduced in late Postclassic times by one of the Cocom rulers of Mayapan. This is difficult to believe in view of the frequent representations of the so-called “captive figures” on Classic Maya monuments. These “captive figures” are very likely representations of enslaved prisoners of war.…
In Postclassic times, when we have documentary evidence for slavery, the condition would seem to have arisen in one of five different ways: (1) by having been born a slave; (2) by having been made a slave in punishment for stealing; (30) by having been made a prisoner of war; (4) by having become an orphan; and (5) by having been acquired by purchase or trade. Provision was made by law and custom for the redemption of children born into slavery. . . Prisoners of war were always enslaved. Those of high degree were sacrificed immediately, but those of lower rank became the property of the soldier who had captured them.
However, Norman Hammond, professor of archaeology at Boston University, warns against reading more modern practices back into ancient Mesoamerican society: “[Slavery] is evocative, and it may well be that Maya slavery was less exploitative, and more like the villeinage of medieval England, or the patron-client relationship with mutual obligations that Tambiah notes for medieval Southeast Asia.” Whatever the exact details of the practice, it is clear from Benjamin’s lumping it with prisons that slavery was clearly negative and that its absence from Zarahemla was a politically enlightened act.
The prohibitions against murder and plunder come as a set, most probably because Benjamin intended them to refer to the same context of political achievement. Although most societies have prohibitions against murder (as distinct from execution, war, or religious ritual), Benjamin may here be using the term to include—and therefore to disapprove of—Mesoamerican human sacrifice. Plunder, the acquisition of goods through acts of war, or raids, is both a motive and a reward for armed action, which was unquestionably very common in Mesoamerica. Both murder and plunder will recur again as a set in the Book of Mormon text. It seems reasonable to see Benjamin setting himself apart from the other kings in disassociating himself also from the Mesoamerican cult of war, which was becoming dominant in this Maya culture region. Benjamin’s prohibition of adultery may contain an echo to Jacob’s denunciations of marital infidelity and multiple wives, suggesting that Benjamin had continued the norm of “one man, one woman,” again a contrast with neighboring cultures.
In summary, Benjamin states that he has not suffered his people to “commit any manner of wickedness,” again, in suggested contrast between Nephite society and neighboring societies who do commit all “manner of wickedness.” In the tradition of ancient societies, the self-definition of King Benjamin’s people included their understanding that they are different from the “others,” a practice that we have seen as early as Enos (see commentary accompanying Enos 1:20) and which probably carried over from his own father.
Text: A possible confirmation that these specific legal prohibitions began in contrast to Lamanite (broadly defined) society appears in the Lamanite king’s proclamation after his conversion by the sons of Mosiah: “… that they ought not to murder, nor to plunder, nor to steal, nor to commit adultery, nor to commit any manner of wickedness” (Alma 23:3). The very order of the prohibited acts, which repeats Benjamin’s list, and the presence of the sons of Mosiah suggests that both kings are reciting the Nephite law code.
This probability is underscored by the repetition of nearly the same list of legal prohibitions in three other places (Mosiah 29:36, Alma 30:10, Hel. 6:23). Significantly, Mosiah 29 also attributes transgression of these legal/moral norms to the iniquity of unnamed kings:
For behold I say unto you, the sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their kings; therefore their iniquities are answered upon the heads of their kings.…
And he also unfolded unto them all the disadvantages they labored under, by having an unrighteous king to rule over them;
Yea, all his iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated—telling them that these things ought not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God. (Mosiah 29:31, 35–36)
Perhaps even more important than their function as Nephite law is this relationship to the traits of foreign kings. These are not empty proscriptions against unusual circumstances but rather define the nature of the threat of outside cultures. These phrases become virtual code words to describe the characteristics of the outside cultural influences against which the Nephite prophets continue to fight throughout the Book of Mormon.