In 2 Nephi 5:18 Nephi records that the people "would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king. In Mosiah 29, Mosiah2 makes an argument against kingship by stating that "because all men are not just, it is not expedient that ye should have a king" (Mosiah 29:16). What was so bad about a king?
According to John Sorenson, a summary of several principles which scholars on the Bible have established to be central to the institution of Israelite kingship will help ground our understanding of what the Book of Mormon means when it talks of monarchy.
1. The king was the owner of the institutions of the state and as such held ownership, in a formal sense, of all agricultural land.
2. In practice, lands specifically owned and controlled by the king were granted to various royal functionaries, or to non-royal officials, as hereditary estates; in return they paid taxes to him and they were obliged to muster military and labor forces from their local subjects as the king required.
3. These elite landlords extracted from the commoners who cultivated the land a substantial portion of their produce (perhaps as much as 50 percent) as tax and rent.
4. This system of land tenure, taxation and furnishing of manpower reinforced the class structure of the society by ensuring that wealth, power and privilege were monopolized by the king and his supporters.
5. A central bureaucracy was the king's mechanism for controlling the various levels of government responsible for the military, economic, legal, and ritual activites of the network of cities and villages within the state. . . . While "the will of the people" had a certain ultimate role to play in this scheme, it would be misleading to think of the arrangement as approaching "democracy."
6. Widespread belief that the king's rule was legitimate, just, and effective was of paramount importance if the system was to keep running. Images, attitudes, and ideals associated with kingship were insistently communicated. . . . Ultimately, a king could be overthrown . . . however the only institutions by which the powers of the public could be decisively exercised were violent ones . . .
7. An organized system of religion--expressed particularly as a set of rituals--was crucial in legitimizing the king. The official priests were "his" priests, in theory; they were associated closely with the royal elite class, being supported by tax money or at least by those patrons who controlled major wealth.
It should be apparent that this form of kingly society was an integral whole, not divisible in practice among conceptual categories such as our terms "economics," "politics," or "religion" suggest. [John L. Sorenson, "The Political Economy of the Nephites," Nephite Culture and Society, pp. 200-202] [See the commentary on 2 Nephi 6:2; 5:30]
2 Nephi 5:18-19 They would that I [Nephi] should be their king. . . . Nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power (Major Nephite Leaders) [[Illustration]]: The Major Leaders During Nephite History. [Church Educational System, Book of Mormon Student Manual: Religion 121 and 122, 1989, p. 160]