The Men Who Would Not Be King
It’s widely acknowledged that any conversation about what sets the United States of America apart as “unique” or “special” is closely tied to its governmental structure, exemplified by concepts like democratic governance and the endurance of one of the world’s oldest written constitutions still in operation. To gain deeper insights into the remarkable origins of something as inspired as the Constitution, it’s crucial to comprehend the prevailing sentiment that led to its creation—a sentiment that may not be as unique as one might assume.
Imagine if George Washington had not declined the offer to become the first King of America. Could our present be dominated by a monarchy? Is the scenario truly that straightforward? It’s possible, but George Washington’s decision was likely not an impulsive one. His rejection is rooted in a profound and enduring ideology that stretches across the annals of history. In fact, George Washington joins a lineage of men who have been presented with the chance to ascend the throne and steadfastly declined, all for the greater benefit of humanity.
Throughout history, we find numerous examples of leaders who prioritized their duty of caring for their citizens over self-indulgence in power. In his commencement address at Brigham Young University in August 1983, Hugh Nibley highlighted Captain Moroni as one of these exceptional individuals who “[sought] not for power, but to pull it down” (Alma 60:36). As an interesting aside, Nibley pointed out that even if this notion might appear overly idealistic, history has indeed witnessed such men, though imagining it in today’s context might be challenging (Nibley, 1983, Brigham Young University Commencement Speech). In the audio/video version of his speech, he appended the names of Greek and Roman leaders: “Epaminondas, Alexander, Aurelian, Claudian the Second, Probus.” While these men were undoubtedly inspired and placed the well-being of their citizens at the forefront of their considerations, more tangible examples can be found in the scriptures.
In the Old Testament Book of Samuel, a stark warning against the establishment of a king’s rule, as opposed to the divine system of judges, is vividly portrayed. God’s message to Samuel is unequivocal: if the Israelites opt for a king, the outcome could be tyrannical, and a chilling admonition is issued: “…you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:18). Despite this grave forewarning, the Israelites persisted in their demand for a king. Astonishingly, the very king they received later attempted to slay the hero who had miraculously defeated Goliath.
We encounter a strikingly similar cautionary note in the Book of Mormon, expressed by Alma the Elder within the Book of Mosiah. He declares, “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. Nevertheless, if it were possible that we could always have just men to be your kings, it would be well for you to have a king” (Mosiah 23:7-8). This very sentiment resurfaces a few chapters later through the words of King Mosiah himself.
In the Book of Mosiah, specifically in chapter 29, King Mosiah delivers a pivotal message. He first informs them that his own son, Aaron, (and eventually his other sons Ammon, Omner and Himni) has declined the opportunity to become king. However, this revelation comes with a warning — a fear that contentions might arise among the people. King Mosiah openly acknowledges his son’s rightful claim to the throne, yet demonstrates their humility in refusal. This serves as a poignant reminder that even those of noble lineage are not immune to the allure of pride, a peril that could pave the way to destruction.
King Mosiah proceeds to deliver a profound speech on the inherent pitfalls of entrusting imperfect men with the mantle of kingship. Over the span of 500 years, during the Nephites’ establishment as a people in the Americas, it is likely that they began to recognize the root cause of many of their challenges: unrighteous rulers who wielded power. Notably, King Mosiah provides a remarkable foreshadowing of democratic principles in verse 26, where he states, “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore, this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.” In this prophetic utterance, King Mosiah lays the groundwork for the concept of democracy, emphasizing the collective wisdom and moral compass of the people as a guiding force in governance.
John Locke, a prominent figure of the Enlightenment era, possessed a profound understanding of this principle. His belief that “people, exercising reason, are best equipped to govern themselves, to make sense of the competing ‘truths’ in the marketplace of ideas” (Craft & Davis, 2016 – Principles of American Journalism) reflects a recognition of the power of informed and rational decision-making. Locke’s influence extended deeply, with his ideas resonating throughout the thoughts of most, if not all, of the founding fathers. Notably, he greatly inspired James Madison, often hailed as the Father of the Constitution.
In a parallel vein, King Mosiah, as recounted, underscores this premise. However, he astutely appends a caveat—should the day arrive when the majority veers toward the path of “choosing iniquity,” a pivotal turning point ensues. In such a scenario, he prophetically warns, “the judgments of God will come upon you” (Mosiah 29:27), underscoring the profound implications of straying from the principles of self-governance and moral righteousness.
This rationale forms the basis of Mosiah’s advocacy for a system of judges. His vision extends far beyond merely replacing a king with a group of judges. He articulates a deeper intent in verse 28, emphasizing that the judges themselves must remain steadfast in adhering to the established law. In the event that any judge strays from this mandate, Mosiah introduces a mechanism: the appointment of higher judges who will uphold the law (Mosiah 29:28).
Interestingly, this notion bears a striking resemblance to the solution proposed by Jethro to Moses during their time in the wilderness with the Children of Israel. Although the context differed, the essence remained analogous. Jethro’s astute observation that Moses was overwhelmed with the weight of resolving all the issues faced by the Israelites prompted him to recommend a system of leaders. These leaders would serve to organize and manage the needs of the people, thus alleviating Moses’ burden (Exodus 18). In this way, both Mosiah and Jethro foresaw the necessity of an organized framework to ensure effective governance and the fair application of laws.
Perhaps it was through Mosiah’s translation of the Book of Ether that he came to grasp this concept more profoundly. If this understanding had eluded him earlier, his insight certainly deepened as he directly engaged with the sentiments of Jared and his brother, borne out in the translated account. At the conclusion of chapter 6 in Ether, a potent message resonates: the people’s fervent desire to anoint one of their own as king became a burden they could scarcely bear, for “Surely this thing leadeth into captivity.” And if this assertion isn’t resounding enough, we encounter the resolute stance of Pagag, the eldest son of the Brother of Jared, alongside his brethren—all declining the mantle of kingship. Even the sons of Jared, with the exception of the youngest, Orihah, spurned the throne. The weight of this truth remains inescapable—two generations passed before a prince dared to rise against his own royal father.
In a world where men have killed their own siblings for the opportunity to rule and reign, it became imperative that these founding fathers grasped and revered the divine agency to self-govern. While this principle is far from novel, history attests that its implementation remains a rarity. The foundation for comprehending this notion has been meticulously laid across the epochs, finally culminating in the realization within the “promised land” itself—the United States of America.
Undoubtedly, the constitution stands as a testament to inspiration, and its very essence is a reflection of the inspired minds that revered God above all, unswayed by human fears, and grasped with sincerity by men who gave up opportunities to be kings only to revere that the sovereignty of one true King in Heaven reigns supreme.