Mosiah 29 All

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

• vv. 7-9: Aaron has just been converted in a miraculous manner, and he is obviously serious about his conversion. His mission is evidence of that. Nevertheless, here we see Mosiah worried that being king might destroy him. Does he lack confidence in his son? If so, why? If not, how do you explain Mosiah’s remarks?

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

it may have been a hypothetical question on Mosiah's part although as you continue to read in Alma I find it interesting thatAmmon is selected as the leader to the mission to the Lamanites and is the one to bless/ anoint each missionary as they seperate to their assignments. Either Aaron was extremely humble and let his brother lead or Aaron felt less qualified to lead. It is not the first time in the scriptures that the eldest has that issue but it is very commendable and different that Aaron allowed and encouraged his younger brother ie Hyrum and Joseph not Jacob and Esau and encouraged his father to form a new and better form of government.

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

• vv. 12ff: What is necessary in order to have a king? Are the judges that Mosiah suggests as rulers the same or similar to the judges of ancient Israel, or is this a different system of government?

• v. 13: Mosiah tells us that the problem with kings is that sometimes they are unjust. How does having judges instead of kings ameliorate this problem? (Compare vv. 28-29.)

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

I think it must be remembered that Mosiah has just spent years interpreting the Jaredite record. He does not have actual experience with wicked kings possible unremarkable ones through the 200 year Nephite history to date and then Mosiah, Benjamin and then himself. His father and grandfather Mosiah were great reformers who left a wicked and hostile environment in the Land of Nephi to come to Zarahemla and teach that people and eventual rule over them. I don't think he wanted to see his people ever to settle back to the mediocrity and wickedness of previous generations. They needed to do there part as Iam sure they did as they homesteaded the new land. He also didn't want to fall into the generations of progressively wickeder kings as there were in Jaredite times. There was a pattern of people's law small governable groups lower judges and higher judges law by the people a vote and representation for the offending party with an assumption of innocence till proven guilty this goes all the way back to Moses' time and was afforded to Nehor and Amlici

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

Verse 16

• What does Mosiah mean by the title "king"?
• In the Old Testament the king is often understood as a shadow of the Messiah, one who typifies the Savior. Is he suggesting here that, because of our iniquity, that type and shadow doesn’t work?
• How is a "king" different from any other type of ruler? If Mosiah is not trying to abolish rulership, what exactly is he trying to accomplish?

Lexical notes

Verse 16

• Kings in the Old Testament. Although kings are mentioned frequently in the Pentateuch, they are usually associated with Gentiles not associated with the Israel or the Abrahamic covenant. One possible exception to this is Melchezidek who is referred to as a king in Gen 14:18. Another exception is in Deut 17:15, 15 and Deut 28:36 where the first prophecies of a king (or kings) appear. In the Book of Judges, Abimelech (the son of Gideon, one of the judges) is made king in Judg 9:6, but this is a short-lived affair and it's not very clear there what exactly the difference was between a "king" and a "judge". It is not until the Israelites beg Samuel for a king in 1 Sam 8:5 which leads to the Saul being anointed king of Israel (see 1 Sam 9:16ff and 1 Sam 10:22-24). Both Moses and Samuel warned that Israel's kings would lead to problems (see esp. Deuteronomy chapters 17 and 28 and 1 Samuel chapters 8 and 12). The problems associated with these kings becomes especially transparent in 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. Around 920 BCE, the Israelite monarchy split into the Kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam and the Kingdom of Judah under Rehoboam (see 1 Kgs 12). These kingdoms were eventually destroyed by the Assyrians (around 720 BCE, prophesied by Isaiah in Isa 7-12, among others; see also 2 Kgs 17:3-6) and Babylonians (around 590 BCE, prophesied by Isaiah in Isa 13-14; see also 2 Kgs 25:1-9).

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

Verse 21

• What is the definition an "iniquitous" king?
• Are there Old Testament precedents for dethroning an iniquitous king, or is this something that comes from the Nephite's American experience?
• How is the word contention used here? Does it just mean arguing, or is it something more? How does the use of the term here compare with the way it is used earlier in the Book of Mosiah and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon?

Verse 22

• What is meant by "friends in iniquity"? Are these friends kept in iniquity because of the king, is the king brought to iniquity by his friends, or do they mutually reinforce each other?
• What does keeping guards have to do with being an "iniquitous king"?
• What is the role of tradition in governance? Why would it be iniquitous for a ruler to tear up the laws of those who have come before? Does the tradition have weight in and of itself, or is the problem here only when unrighteous kings break the laws established in righteousness?
• What does it mean to trample under your feet the commandments of God? Does this just mean to break the commandments, or is there something more implied?

Verse 23

• Mosiah here claims that an unrighteous king a) enacts laws, b) sends them forth, c) punishes those who violate his laws, including d) destroying them, and e) sending armies against them. Are these all prerogatives of a righteous king as well? Are these practices in and of themselves unrighteous, or just when they are used to sustain iniquitous laws or practices?
• Can righteous kings send armies against his own people, or just against foreign enemies?

Verse 24

• Why does Mosiah consider unrighteous rulership to be an "abomination"? What does abomination mean, and how is it different from any other type of unholy or impure practice?

Verse 25

• Does this verse tell us that the judges were elected democratically, or does it mean something else? What evidence can you give for your conclusion?
• Is the law referred to in this verse the Law of Moses or some other body of law?

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

Exegesis

Verse 25

"the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord" The reference to the laws here is interesting in terms of how it finesses the issue of the law's origin. First, the law is linked to "the voice of the people" who choose judges in order to enforce the law. Second, the law is associated with "our fathers." Finally, the law is linked at some point in the distant past, apparently, with God, who gave it to our fathers. Notice the claims that are not made: the law is not authored by the people, the law is not derived by the legal exegesis of scripture, the law is not seen as being directly dictated by God. Rather, the law seems to be based on a tradition that is sanctified by some hazily defined divine origin.

The use of the word "correct" here is also suggestive. The Book of Mormon frequently speaks of "incorrect traditions" of the Lamanites, which seems to consist of a counter narrative of the Lehite exodus from Jerusalem, in which Nephi stole the right of government from his older brothers. (See,e.g., Mosiah 10:12, Alma 26:24, Alma 37:9) By calling the "laws of our fathers" "correct" Mosiah may be drawing an implicit contrast with the "incorrect traditions" of the Lamanites. If so, then the costrast of laws with tradition is interesting in that it seems to link the concept of law to a particular narrative. The primacy of narrative in Nephite legal discussions can be seen in other passages, particularlly Alma 30, the one place in the Book of Mormon where a legal rule is derived from a scriptural text. The text in question, however, is a narrative rather than a legislative passage from the Old Testament. (See Alma 30:7-8)

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

Verse 26

• Given the Nephite experience so far, the record they have of Israel before Lehi left, and what they have just read in the Book of Ether, how can Mosiah say this? All the evidence seems to indicate that it is quite common for the majority to desire what is wrong, doesn’t it?
• What does it mean to "do your business by the voice of the people"? Is this actual democracy or something else?

Verse 27

• Does this verse answer the question just asked about v. 26? How are we to understand these verses as they apply to us today?
• What does it mean for God to "visit you with great destruction"?

Verse 28

• What is meant here by judges? How are Nephite judges different from kings? How are these judges different from judges described in the Old Testament?
• What does it mean to have a judge judged by a higher judge?

Verse 29

• What are the difficulties and opportunities afforded by having lower judges judge higher judges "according to the voice of the people"?
• How is this system of judges different from other modern judicial systems?

Verse 30

• How can King Mosiah establish a democracy by fiat? Is this what he is really trying to do, or is something else going on here?

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

Verse 31

• Israelites also had this belief, that the wickedness of the king caused the wickedness of the nation. It was the flip side of the belief that the king typified the Messiah. What bearing does this belief have on our understanding of government? Why might the ancient Israelites and King Mosiah have believed that a wicked king caused a wicked people?
• We don’t usually believe that a wicked CEO in a company is necessarily a bad leader for the company. Why would a wicked national leader necessarily be a bad leader for the country? In other words, how do the two kinds of leadership differ, if they do?

Verse 32

• To what inequality is Mosiah referring? What are the implications of there being an inequality of iniquities between rulers and their people?

Verse 33

• Is Mosiah arguing that it is too difficult to be king, even for a righteous person, so no one should ask someone to be his or her king? Why would that argument be different for a king than for any other leader?
• What exactly are the burdens of kingship that Mosiah is talking about here? Is it just the complaining of his people, or are we talking about some kind of divine kingship whereby the sins of the people are thought to fall upon the king, who is then required to expiate them? How might this relate to Ancient Mesoamerican concepts of divine kingship, whereby the king was required to ceremonially shed his own blood for his people?

Verse 34

• What does it mean for each person to "bear his part"? His part of what?

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

Verse 38

• Two things seem to have most impressed Mosiah’s people to give up their desire for a king: they wanted each person to have an equal chance and they wanted each person to answer for his or her own sins. What kinds of things has Mosiah been talking about that would have led them to the conclusion that each should have an equal chance at something or other? To what do you think they want each person to have an equal chance?
• How is their desire to have each person answer for his or her own sins a response to Mosiah’s teaching? Why wouldn’t each person be responsible under a king? Is this, perhaps, reflection of the Israelite understanding of the king (see v. 31)?
• Are Mosiah's actions here more about establishing democracy for democracy's sake, or for some other purpose?

Verse 39

• What are the liberties that "had been granted unto" the people here?

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

Exegesis

Verse 38

This verse offers a vital clue to how the Nephites understood kingship as a form of government. Under a king, it was apparently not the case that "every man" would "have an equal chance throughout all the land." What that seems to mean, according to the following phrase, is that "every man" was not responsible "to answer for his own sins." The role of the king was, in Nephite society, then, to represent in a single person the whole of the nation: if the kingdom was righteous, so was the king, and if the kingdom was wicked, so was the king (a sort of dialectic between king and kingdom seems implied, rather than a one-way causality). The king, and a unique embodiment of the whole people, carried all the sins of the people, as well as all of the glory: everything was on the head of the king. When Mosiah offers here to change the manner of government, the people become "exceedingly anxious" to answer for their own sins. Each person is given, ultimately, the opportunity to be a king and a priest over a limited domain (this seems, in the end, to be the point of King Benjamin's speech). The king carries the weight (burden/glory), and each is willing to carry his (or her?) own. (It might be noted that this understanding of the monarchy makes quite a gap between the spirit of the Book of Mormon and the American attitudes toward the Revolution.)

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 29

Questions

Verse 41

• What is meant here by throughout the land? Does this just refer to the Land of Zarahemla, or all of the cities and villages inhabited by the Nephites (v.44)?
• How does this reorganization of the Nephite polity represent a true change between how the various cities and villages are governed in relation to each other?

Verse 42

• Does this tell us that Alma held two offices or that the office of chief judge and that of high priest were the same, as for example in the United States the President and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services aren’t two different offices? What is the relationship between the organization of the political and religious leadership in Nephite society at this time?

Verse 42

• Alma judged righteously and there was peace throughout the land. Is that a cause and effect relation? If so, how so?

Verse 47

• What does it mean for Alma to be the "founder" of their church?

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links