The conceptual nature of the Nephite king is most clear in verse 12. Right after discussing the potentially revolutionary idea (quite literally revolutionary, given Mosiah’s circumstances) of creating judges, Mosiah begins his explanation as to why it might be better.
Before discussing why the judges might be good, however, he begins his argument with the acknowledgement that a king is also good, and perhaps the best. The reason that a king is good is that “it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man…”
For Mosiah, the shift from king to judge was a shift in the judgment from God to man. The judges would judge men according to men – or according to law. The king had judged men according to God. There is a complete association here between the person of the king and the will of God. Modern readers of the Book of Mormon who see in these passages an early American anti-king sentiment miss this extremely important point. The kind of king that Mosiah was constituted the direct link to the will of God. That connection is beneficial, and Mosiah acknowledges it.
The problem in kingship was not the king as representative of God, but the wicked king who was unable to speak for God. In other words, a wicked king could not speak for God, and therefore would be unable to guarantee just judgments. This is the reason for his explanation of his father as a just king. Benjamin was the conduit for the law of God, and established God’s will among the people, and judged them by it. In essence, Mosiah is proclaiming the king as the ruling prophet, and declares that this would be the best for any society, to be ruled by a man in constant touch with the will of God.
Internal connections: Mosiah is creating an argument that we easily understand, but which should have been completely foreign to most of the people of Zarahemla. This idea was not foreign, however, to the people of Alma. When Alma is asked to be king, note his response:
Mosiah 23:7-9
7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.
8 Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king.
9 But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore repentance;
Our record of Alma’s refusal of the kingship is very important to our understanding of the transition from king to judges in Zarahemla. First, we must remember that when Mormon can cite discourse he appears to do so directly from the plates. Therefore, when we see similarities between texts we may rightly assume a connection between texts. In this case, note how Alma’s refusal of kingship closely matches the language and reasoning that Mosiah propounds.
The first important case is Mosiah 23:8 where Alma declares “if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king.” This is precisely the sentiment that Mosiah is declaring in verse 13. Note the similar meaning and language (although Mosiah has expanded the text):
Mosiah 29:13 “Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.”
The basic sentiment is exactly the same, and the beginning of Alma’s refusal is significantly the beginning of the argument for Mosiah’s ultimate refusal of kingship; a king is good if he is a good king.
Now we need to examine Alma’s significant argument for change. He gives a very specific example of a bad king. In Mosiah 23:9 he cites Noah as the quintessential reason that a bad king is not good for the people. As we continue through Mosiah’s discourse, we will come to verse 18 where Mosiah also uses Noah as his particular bad example.
When we combine these correspondences with the known effect of Alma the Elder on the reorganization of the religious structures of Zarahemla, it is apparent that Alma the Elder is also at least conceptually behind the shift in political structures. Mosiah clearly esteemed Alma the Elder very highly, and listened to his counsel regarding religion (notably the creation of the churches). Alma the Younger espouses the very same ideas that Mosiah proclaims here, and it is therefore virtually certain that these are also Alma’s ideas that have been adopted by Mosiah.
Even though the current story is one of Mosiah, it simply serves to highlight the tremendous influence of Alma the Elder on Nephite society. Seldom can one man be credited with altering the religious makeup of a people. It is seldom that one man can be credited with a revolution in the governmental principles of a people. Alma did both.