The Nephite Kings Compared to the Israelite Kings

I noticed something in reading the scriptures.  There seems to be a distinct pattern where the kings of Israel and Judah sometimes start out well but always end with a caveat.  It’s not just David and Bathsheba and Solomon and his idolatrous wives, it seems to be pretty consistent.

Whereas the Nephite and Lamanite kings sometimes start wicked and get better, but mostly are just nasty or righteous the whole time.    I don’t see the same pattern of kings starting out in reform mode but falling off as they go along.

Real?  Did you notice the same thing?

Maybe its because the surrounding idolatries didn’t affect the Nephites in the same way.  As best as we can tell, they were the most technically and culturally advanced for their area by far, so there was no strong cultural ‘pull’ to continually contend with.  The Nephites’ sins were their own.  The Nephites were also very strong in themselves, they don’t seem to have had the Israelites situation of being one small power intermingled with a number of other small powers and big powers, intermeshed in alliances and other relationships.

But I also wonder if its a difference in who is doing the writing.  The books of Chronicles and Kings are presumably being put into final form in the captivity, where the compilers and editors are aware that it ends badly and feel the need to explain it.  Whereas the Nephite writers are in the position of knowing that it ends bad from the beginning, and there seems to be less compiliation going on, there is the original source and then there is Mormon and that’s it, and he’s a warleader.  It’s not obvious how that would make a direct difference, but I feel that it would.