Alma1’s refusal is critical in understanding the transition from king to judges in Zarahemla. Because Mormon quotes this discourse directly from the plates, the textual similarities rightly signal a connection between texts. In this case, Alma1’s refusal closely matches Mosiah’s language and argument.
The first important example is Alma1’s declaration, “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”—precisely Mosiah’s sentiment in verse 13 though in expanded form: “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” (Mosiah 29:13).
The basic concept is exactly the same. The first point in Alma1’s refusal is, significantly, the first point in Mosiah’s ultimate recommendation against kingship; a king is good if he is a good king. Alma1 uses king Noah as a bad example of a king. In verse 18 Mosiah also uses Noah as his bad example.
The combination of these correspondences with Alma1’s reorganization of Zarahemla’s religious structures makes it apparent that Alma1 has had great impact on reconceptualizing its political structures as well. Mosiah clearly esteemed Alma1 very highly and listened to his counsel regarding religion (notably the creation of the churches). Alma1 espouses the very same ideas that Mosiah proclaims here; therefore, it is virtually certain that these are also Alma1’s ideas that Mosiah has adopted.
Even though the current story is about Mosiah, it highlights the tremendous influence of Alma1 on Nephite society. Seldom can one man be credited with altering a people’s religious institutions. Seldom can one man be credited with revolutionizing a people’s government. Alma did both.