Daniel H. Ludlow suggests that “king Laman” was a throne name, much as “Nephi” became the name of all early Nephite kings (Jacob 1:11):
Evidently the Lamanites have used the same procedure as the Nephites did in their early history of naming their kings after their earliest leader. Jacob 1:11 mentions that the kings who succeeded Nephi were known as “second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings.” Thus, it should not be too surprising to discover that the king of the Lamanites in approximately 178 B.C. was still known as “King Laman” (Mosiah 10:6), although the original leader after whom the king was named had lived some four hundred years before. Also, later in the Book of Mormon we discover that the son who succeeded this king is also known as Laman (Mosiah 24:3).
Ludlow is certainly correct that both father and son have the same name and that both are kings. However, it is less clear that “Laman” is not a personal name. The passage on Laman’s son is: “And now the name of the king of the Lamanites was Laman, being called after the name of his father; and therefore he was called king Laman. And he was king over a numerous people” (Mosiah 24:3). This description does, in fact, sound like a personal name.
Since Zeniff returned to the land of Nephi not long after Mosiah1’s departure from it, the political and social transformation of those remaining in the city of Nephi has occurred relatively rapidly. Despite the presence of a new ruling lineage and a new tradition, would the cultural shift required to accept a Lamanite king have occurred so quickly? It may not have been as significant a change as it might appear. Since Jacob’s time, the contentions in the city of Nephi revolved around the contest between the believing and unbelieving Nephites over the degree of Lamanite acculturation. The division that split Mosiah1’s people occurred on cultural lines; the believers went with Mosiah, while those who remained were presumably already pressing for greater Lamanite acculturation. The presence of a king named Laman whose father was also named Laman suggests that this was not an entirely internal fission. It is quite doubtful that the cultural hatred engrained in Nephite tradition would have seen Laman as an appropriate name. Since the king’s father was also Laman, that places the father earlier than the split. It is possible, therefore, that there was some outside Lamanite influence in the events leading to Mosiah’s departure, and that an outsider was sitting on the throne.
Redaction: Zeniff’s description of Lamanite intention immediately follows that of his people’s economic activity. The two conditions—Zeniffite prosperity and Lamanite envy—are clearly linked.