The period of kings is described in 1. and 2. Samuel and 1. and 2. Kings in the Old Testament. In the Book of Mormon it is basically the Book of Mosiah. If the first manuscript had not been lost, we would have the portion of the large plates covering the reign of the kings from Nephi to Mosiah and consequently much more to compare with. But the Book of Mosiah provides plenty of relevant material and several reasons why this connection makes sense. In 1 Kings 8, King Solomon dedicates the temple during the Feast of Tabernacles, addresses the people who are gathered around and they offer sacrifice. In Mosiah 2, King Benjamin gathers the people around the temple during the Feast of Tabernacles, they offer sacrifice and he addresses them. These two respective parts of the BoM and OT also contain examples of righteous and wicked kings.
King Noah, for instance, is really the archetype of a wicked king and makes another connection point to the Old Testament kings being described like any other wicked Israelite king. Also, this textual contrast is illustrative:
14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my , as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days. (1 Kings 3:14)
1 And now it came to pass that Zeniff conferred the kingdom upon Noah, one of his sons; therefore Noah began to reign in his stead; and he did not walk in the ways of his father.Yet, Bradley Kramer argues in his book, "Beholding the tree of life", that
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God (Mosiah 11:1-2)
«the question of kings and their ultimate effect on society is left somewhat unresolved in the Hebrew scriptures. According to Rabbi Samuel Sandmel, “viewpoints in Samuel – Kings [on this issue] clash and contradict each other”. Much is said in favor of kings as well as against them.”
The Book of
Mosiah resolves this issue in a way that makes sense. The Book of Mormon offers something we can't really find in the Bible: Righteous kings who "endured to the end". We know
very little of Mosiah I, but every indicator points towards him being a
righteous man. His son, King Benjamin, is an amalgam of kingly virtues, whose son, Mosiah II, also follows in his father’s footsteps, comprising a trio of
righteous Nephite kings. The famous trio of Israelite kings, Saul, David and
Solomon, all started out well but eventually fell. This may have influenced the
ambiguous view on the effect of kings in the Old Testament.
At the end
of the Book of Mosiah, when Mosiah II is old, he suggests they abandon the monarchy and select
judges. His reasoning settles the unresolved debate in the Old Testament.
Therefore, it were possible that you could have men to be your kings, who would establish the 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 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. (Mosiah 29:13)
If there
was some sort of guarantee that kings would always be righteous, it would be
good for the people to have a king. That makes sense. We have seen the
descriptions of how Mosiah I likely saved the remaining righteous part of the
Nephites in the first land if inheritence, how Benjamin established peace in the land, what tremendous effect
his speech had, how Mosiah II translated the Jaredite plates by the gift and power of God, etc. But knowing the Israelite
history, Mosiah II knows that this trio of righteous kings is the exception
rather than the rule. Even though his son has repented, he knows about the
fallen kings of Israel and is worried that history will repeat itself. In that case,
a king does more damage than good.
And now if there should be another appointed in his stead, behold I fear there would rise among you. And who knoweth but what my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry and away a part of this people after him, which would cause wars and contentions among you, which would be the cause of shedding much blood and perverting the way of the Lord, yea, and destroy the souls of many people. (Mosiah 29:7)
For behold, how much doth one king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! Yea, remember king Noah, his 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 . (Mosiah 29:17-18)
The answer to the question about influence of
kings was perhaps obvious, but it is nonetheless an open question in the Old
Testament that gets resolved by connecting the Book of Mormon to it in this
chiastic structure. It also goes much deeper than “good
kings = good for the people” and “bad kings = bad for the people”.
Kramer gives one example as he cites Rabbi Noson Gurary
According to the Torah, a Jewish king was not an object of worship but a role model, a person who was totally dedicated to God. A Jewish king such as Moses or King David was the epitome of humility and self-effacement. They saw their roles as the servants of God, and their greatness was a product of their humility; the greatness of a holy person is that he is totally subservient to God and has no ego. He sees his role as actualizing God's will on earthThere is hardly a better summary of King Benjamin's character. There is a deeper principle behind all this, one that becomes relevant even for those of us who are not subject to any king. Again, in Kramer's words
the Book of Mosiah actually encourages [extrapolation of this principle to our workplace, church or home] by emphasizing that this is not just a governmental principle; it is a basic theological question that must be answered by all. The question is not really "which government is best?" or even "how can a king serve God?" It is more "how can anyone serve God?"