This post is a summary of the article “Prophet or Loss: Mosiah1/Zeniff, Benjamin/Noah, Mosiah2/Limhi and the Emergence of the Almas” by Val Larsen in Volume 60 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. All of the Interpreting Interpreter articles may be seen at https://interpreterfoundation.org/category/summaries/. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter series is available at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought/.
The Takeaway
Larsen argues that the Book of Mosiah frames a strong contrast between the family lines of Mosiah (i.e., Mosiah1, Benjamin, Mosiah2) and Zeniff (i.e., Zeniff, Noah, Limhi), with each pair of kings mirroring each other in ways that highlight the spiritual follies of Zeniff’s family line. In doing so, Larsen proposes sexual symbolism in the context of Benjamin’s sermon that contrasts righteous sexuality with the wanton whoredoms of King Noah.
The Summary
In this article, Val Larsen explores how the Book of Mosiah treats its two generational lines of kings—specifically, the line of the first King Mosiah and the line of Zeniff. These parallel histories show how rejecting the counsel of God and his prophets can lead to disastrous circumstances, and helps prepare for the emergence of Alma and his son as the successors of Nephite leadership. Larsen frames these as direct contrasts between each generational set of kings, including:
- Mosiah1 vs. Zeniff, which contrasts Mosiah’s inspired exodus to Zarahemla with Zeniff’s seemingly less-than-inspired return to the land of Nephi, the latter quickly devolving into a state of cyclical wars with the Lamanites. Mormon seems to frame this narrative as hinging on Mosiah’s prophetic insight and on Zeniff’s rejection of that insight.
- Benjamin vs. Noah, where each represents an archetypal example of righteous and wicked kingship. Larsen notes the many similarities between the two kings, as well as their differences. Larsen emphasizes one specific contrast regarding sexual morality, with Larsen arguing that King Benjamin’s sermon features implicit sexual symbolism that emphasizes selflessness, spiritual rebirth, and a temple and family-centered framework that counters the whoredoms encouraged by King Noah. The towers raised by the two men are both associated with impending death, though one’s end is more violent and untimely than the other.
- Mosiah2 vs. Limhi, where both men are framed in similar ways, and are described as learned and scholarly, caring deeply about scriptural records. But while Mosiah and his reign are more closely associated with and connected to Christ, Limhi’s reign is characterized in a more sophic and secular light, with his people having to be educated by hard experience before they turn humbly toward God.
As Larsen concludes:
In all his writings, Mormon’s main theme is the Messiah, and his main purpose is to testify of Christ… But Mormon makes his main narratives resonate more powerfully by embedding them in smaller frame narratives… The core message developed by the interaction of these frame and embedded narratives is the importance of being led by prophets… In the absence of prophets, scholars reading scripture become our source for knowledge of God and his will… Unless we have the ongoing guidance of God that living prophets provide, we are bound to go astray as individuals and as a people.
The Reflection
Larsen presents fruitful insights comparing these sets of kings, and it’s clear to me that Mormon intended to draw clear contrasts between them, not least of which between Benjamin and Noah. There’s no mystery about which figure we as readers are supposed to emulate and which behaviors we ought to eschew. And in Limhi’s case, despite being presented in a much more positive light than Noah, his foibles and failings are given prominent emphasis in the text, as explored thoroughly in another recent Interpreter paper.
But within the well-furnished room of his paper, Larsen has outlined a bit of an elephant. Though his article is about much more than the sexual symbolism he proposes, it’s certainly the most unique of his offerings here, and it’s a hard set of ideas to just skirt past without comment. Sexual symbolism is incredibly common in ancient literature, and we shouldn’t dismiss the idea of its presence in the Book of Mormon. But I don’t think many readers are used to looking for that symbolism, particularly in King Benjamin’s sermon. Its implicit nature means that we have to do a fair amount of squinting in order to see it, which suggests a bit of caution may be warranted. Larsen’s framing, though interesting, seems to be entirely optional. To (misattributingly) paraphrase my good friend Dr. Freud, sometimes a tower is just a tower. It’s admirable that Larsen uses Benjamin to draw such noble lessons on the righteous application of the procreative power. But we can also give emphasis to Benjamin’s many other rich lessons as highlighted by Larsen—on selfless service, on the importance of covenant, and on taking Christ’s image into our own countenance.
