Mosiah 29:32-38

³² And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land. ³³ And many more things did king Mosiah write unto them, unfolding unto them all the trials and troubles of a righteous king, yea, all the travails of soul for their people, and also all the murmurings of the people to their king; and he explained it all unto them. ³⁴ And he told them that these things ought not to be; but that the burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.

Mosiah 29:32-34 (Emphasis mine)

Mosiah(2) told the people that there should be no inequality in the land.  It was to be a land of liberty where people enjoy their rights and freedoms. 

Equality was an important part of the law.  When church members where being persecuted, King Mosiah(2) issued “was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men” (Mosiah 27:3).  But church members had an obligation placed upon them.  We read that “there was a strict law among the people of the church, that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves” (Alma 1:21).

Liberty was important to Mosiah(2), but he added a qualification.  That is that this is as long as the “Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land.”  Lehi prophesied that this would be a land of liberty.  He told us that “this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.  And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever” (2 Nephi 1:7).

³⁵ And he also unfolded unto them all the disadvantages they labored under, by having an unrighteous king to rule over them; ³⁶ 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. ³⁷ And now it came to pass, after king Mosiah had sent these things forth among the people they were convinced of the truth of his words. ³⁸ Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.

Mosiah 29:35-38 (Emphasis mine)

He outlined problems of a wicked king.  He told them that “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” (verse 36).  This echoed the teachings of his father, King Benjamin.

“Early in Book of Mormon history, King Benjamin set forth a five-part legal series prohibiting (1) murder, (2) plunder, (3) theft, (4) adultery, and (5) any manner of wickedness. This five-part list, which first appears in Mosiah 2:13, uniformly reappears seven other times in the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 29:36; Alma 23:3; 30:10; Helaman 3:14; 6:23; 7:21; and Ether 8:16). Apparently the Nephites viewed Benjamin's set of laws as setting a formulaic precedent.” [1] (Emphasis mine)

After hearing his words, the people accepted his recommendations.  They gave up their desire to have a king. 

“[T]he transition from kingship to democracy in Zarahemla was accomplished relatively easily. The ruling Nephites themselves engineered and favored the change in government (see Mosiah 29:4–37), and the change was accepted readily by a majority of all enfranchised people in the land (see Mosiah 29:37–41). While it is true that a civil uprising soon followed, led by the so-called kingmen under Amlici who opposed the new regime (see Alma 2–3), ideologically most of the people easily embraced the idea and the ideals of democratization.” [2] (Emphasis mine)

Hugh Nibley adds:

“Acting on the recommendation of King Mosiah, who was anxious to avoid a throne controversy, the Nephites in the early first century B.C. substituted for the kingship a system of rule by priestly judges, ‘wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God’ (Mosiah 29:11). We are not told where Mosiah got the idea, but the eagerness and ease with which the people adopted the system imply that they were familiar with it (Mosiah 29:37—41).” [3] (Emphasis mine)

---

[1] Textual Consistency, John W. Welch, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, accessed February 14, 2012.

[2] Democratizing Forces in King Benjamin's Speech, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, accessed February 14, 2012.

[3] The Troubled Orient, Hugh W. Nibley, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, accessed February 14, 2012.

Mosiah 29:17-24

Mosiah(2) has sent his message to the people.  He has a dilemma. The people want Aaron as their next king, but he turned down the kingdom.  Mosiah(2) explained the dangers to peace and stability if another man was selected king.  It could easily lead to civil war.  Throw in the possibility that Aaron may change his mind and want the kingdom.  The results could be the end of the kingdom itself.

¹⁷ For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! ¹⁸ Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people.  Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage. ¹⁹ And were it not for the interposition of their all–wise Creator, and this because of their sincere repentance, they must unavoidably remain in bondage until now. ²⁰ But behold, he did deliver them because they did humble themselves before him; and because they cried mightily unto him he did deliver them out of bondage; and thus doth the Lord work with his power in all cases among the children of men, extending the arm of mercy towards them that put their trust in him.

Mosiah 29:17-20 (Emphasis mine)

What do we do about an evil king?  This king would lead us to great destruction.  He uses the example of king Noah.  He led his people to commit sin and reject the commandments of the Lord.  The day came where they were either killed or led into captivity by the Lamanites.  Only through righteousness and repentance were they eventually freed from their captivity.  Had they not repented, Mosiah(2) tells us that they would still be in bondage to this day.

The scriptures are full of warnings about the dangers of a king and a wicked king.  We read about Omri, the chief captain of Israel’s army and later made king.  We are told that he “wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all that were before him. For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger with their vanities”  (1 Kings 16:25-26). The Proverbs tell us that “[i]t is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness” (Proverbs 16:12).  Having translated the plates of Ether, Mosiah(2) knew that the Jaredites asked for a king.  During the life of Jared and the brother of Jared, the people wanted a king.  “[T]he people desired of them that they should anoint one of their sons to be a king over them. And now behold, this was grievous unto them.  And the brother of Jared said unto them: Surely this thing leadeth into captivity” (Ether 6:22-23). 

John Tvedtnes writes about this situation.

“Mosiah had other reasons for abolishing the monarchy. One of these was the iniquity that resulted from the reign of King Noah over the Nephites who lived in the land of Nephi and who had recently resettled in the land of Zarahemla, where Mosiah reigned (see 29:17-24).

“Mosiah stressed that the wickedness of King Noah had caused the people to come into bondage (see Mosiah 29:18-19). This is also a common theme in the book of Ether. At the time kingship was first established among the Jaredites, the brother of Jared warned that it would lead to captivity (see Ether 6:22-23). Throughout Jaredite history, a number of kings were conquered by a son or brother and made to serve in captivity (see 7:5, 7, 17; 8:3-4; 10:14-15, 30-31; 11:9, 18-19, 23; 13:23).” [1] (Emphasis mine)

²¹ 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. ²² 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; ²³ And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth 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. ²⁴ And now behold I say unto you, it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.

Mosiah 29:21-24 (Emphasis mine)

The real danger of a wicked king is that he can’t be dethroned short of a violent overthrow.  He’s protected by friends who want him to remain in power.  If he falls, they fall as well. 

A wicked king understands that there are those, even in his own court, who want to kill him and take over.  The king surrounds himself with guards loyal to him. 

This wicked king creates laws to enforce his beliefs.  These lead the people to wickedness.  Those who do not obey his laws will be executed.  Those that rebel against him will be executed. 

Kings in the Book of Mormon did not have a legislative function.  They administered and enforced existing laws.  John Welch explains:

“The Nephites relied heavily on the written law. Their ancestors treasured the Plates of Brass, also relying heavily upon those written records for specifications regarding the law of Moses and how they should keep it. Being cut off from most sources of oral or customary law, the Nephites saw the law primarily as a written body (see 1 Nephi 4:15—16) and viewed any change in the written law with deep suspicion (see Mosiah 29:22—23).” [2] (Emphasis mine)

Matthew Hilton and Neil Flinders identify five consequences of a wicked king.

“A wicked king destroys the purposes of God and the righteousness of the people in specific ways. First, because he has ‘friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; (Mosiah 29:22), one ‘cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood’ (Mosiah 29:21). Second, ‘he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him’ (Mosiah 29:22). Third, ‘he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God’ (Mosiah 29:22). Fourth, ‘he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people ... after the manner of his own wickedness’ (Mosiah 29:23). Fifth, if he can, he will destroy those who will not ‘obey his laws’ or those who ‘rebel’ against them (Mosiah 29:23). Mosiah told his subjects that ‘it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you’
(Mosiah 29:24).” [3] (Emphasis mine)

---

[1] King Mosiah and the Judgeship, John A. Tvedtnes, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, accessed February 12, 2012.

[2] The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount: The Differences, John W. Welch, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, accessed February 12, 2012.

[3] The Impact of Shifting Cultural Assumptions on the Military Policies Directing Armed Conflict Reported in the Book of Alma, Matthew M. F. Hilton, and Neil J. Flinders, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, February 12, 2012.