And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king, save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; and he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people; yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever does not obey his laws, he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him, he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. [3] This certainly is a description of arbitrary powers vested in the king. And what is true of the Nephite monarchy is equally true of the Lamanite kingdoms--judging from those rare and brief glimpses one gets of Lamanite governments in the Book of Mormon. Among all three peoples--Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites--wherever kingly government is described it is the same--it is "simple," "absolute," "ancient" monarchy. [4] There is no indication anywhere of the existence of cabinets or parliaments; or of the division of political authority into executive, legislative or judicial co-ordinate branches. Nor is there any indication that there was ever an attempt to blend the various primary forms of government--monarchy, aristocracy, democracy--into a mixed government, a government embracing elements from all three of these recognized primary forms. Such mixed governments are modern creations; refinements in the science of government unattempted by the ancients. The ancients, in fact, held them to be impossible, mere visionary whims, solecisms. Even a man of the excellent understanding of Tacitus declared that if such a government were formed it could never be lasting or secure. Reign of the Judges--Republic. It is however in the matter of the Nephite "reign of the Judges" or the "Nephite Republic" that an illiterate, modern writer would most likely have betrayed himself. Especially an American writer strongly imbued with the excellence, to say nothing of the sanctity, of the American form of government.