ksfisher Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Not really. The Nephites had the records and the language was preserved through the records. Mulekites were unable to read the records, and apparently did not even have a written language since they preserved their lineage thru oral tradition.The Mulekites generally conceded that the Nephite language was superior to the point that they gave over the leadership to them, even though, as descendants of Judah, they had the superior claim to the kingship.Language superiority is the reason Mosiah became king? How is one language superior over another?
The Nehor Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 As I said in the OP, the story makes perfect sense if there weren't any "others". Mosiah's people know that the only people in the promised land have been brought there somehow by the Lord, so when they find another group of people, they know they must have come from somewhere, and thus they figure out a way to communicate this across the language barrier.But if there were natives and the people had blended with them, how would either group know that the other group had descended from an old world migration 300 years earlier? Much of modern Book of Mormon apologetics hinges on the idea that the Lehites blended in with the natives (to the point that they are archaeologically indistinguishable from them).How do we know that Mosiah and company knew they were from the Old World at first meeting?It also wouldn't be too hard to trace a common origin even across a language barrier. Bible stories passed down amongst the Zarahemlites?I imagine that put Mosiah in charge because he had the records of their past and, since the Mulekites were fighting each other, maybe there were hopes that a disinterested foreign king would end the infighting.
DWhitmer Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Yesterday in Sunday School, we discussed the story of Mosiah (the first) and the discovery of the people of Zarahemla. And as we discussed the story, I once again had difficulty understanding how the Book of Mormon makes sense if there were "native" populations co-existing with the Book of Mormon peoples.Actually, the Pilgrims did not venture out for more than a hundred years and native tribes could not understand each other as close as 16 miles away. The BoM does say that 450 people could escape with farm animals in tow and not be discovered within hours, so we know from that what the terrain was like. It was not sandy like Baja, it was not a jungle like Mesoamerica or Malaysia. The only thing that allows for that are forests, mostly likely hardwood forests where you can move rapidly and not leave tracks.Search groups repeatedly got lost, the question you should discuss next time is why Limhi's party failed to cross a Nephite when they traveled (according to Mesotheorists & a few others like May, Meldrum, etc.) from the Southwest quadrant (to use Clarke's term) to the Northeast??The only answer is congruent is the geography in western New York with a Narrow Neck along the west side of BoM land, not east. By following the West Sea (Lake Ontario) north and not venturing inland, they made it through the Narrow Neck and found Jaredite lands. Anyway, good luck and remember, BoM lands were tiny, a mere 1.5 days wide!
cdowis Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Language superiority is the reason Mosiah became king? How is one language superior over another?OK, I thought I had already explained it. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."The group that can read and write would be superior in culture and technology over those who are illiterate -- they clearly were unable to read and write. As teachers and mentors, they would take over the leadership, with the consent of King Zarahemla. Written records trump oral traditions, and it was necessary for the Mulekites to learn the Nephnite language for the same reason that the Lamanites eventually learned it.Give it some thought and eventually you will figure it out. Edited May 1, 2012 by cdowis
Nathair/|\ Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 If we understand the writing in the KJV of the Bible(400 years ago) Elizabethan English isn't all that hard. OTOH Beowulf(about a thousand years ago) is a whole different ball of wax. So I can see the two BoM groups being able to understand each other with difficulty. But Nephi(the original), and Moroni understanding each other not so much.An even more dramatic example is the difference between the English of Chaucer and the English of Shakespeare and the KJV which are separated by less than 300 years and both of which were written after the imposition of Norman French on the Anglo-Saxon of Beowulf.
ksfisher Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 OK, I thought I had already explained it. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."The group that can read and write would be superior in culture and technology over those who are illiterate -- they clearly were unable to read and write. As teachers and mentors, they would take over the leadership, with the consent of King Zarahemla. Written records trump oral traditions, and it was necessary for the Mulekites to learn the Nephnite language for the same reason that the Lamanites eventually learned it.Give it some thought and eventually you will figure it out.So, based on one document (written by a Nephite) we are able to clearly see the Nephite language and culture was superior to that of the Mulekites. I doubt that a Mulekite would see himself in any way inferior to a Nephite.And, based on the number of internal conflicts, contentions, and rebellions that the Nephites experienced, the Mulekites never seemed to be entirely convinced that the Nephites had a right to rule. It was only the appearance of the Savior that seems to have truly united the two groups into one.We seem to have a very simplified view of Nephite culture, politics, and society presented to us in the Book of Mormon. This is not surprising, as the books intent is not to teach history, but to bring us to Christ. 1
DWhitmer Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 So, based on one document (written by a Nephite) we are able to clearly see the Nephite language and culture was superior to that of the Mulekites. I doubt that a Mulekite would see himself in any way inferior to a Nephite.The spiritual factor had rank despite some evidence that some (maybe one) of the Mulekites were LARGE® than the Nephites:And they came down again that they might pitch battle against the Nephites. And they were led by a man whose name was Coriantumr; and he was a descendant of Zarahemla; and he was a dissenter from among the Nephites; and he was a LARGE and a mighty man. (Helaman 1:15)And, based on the number of internal conflicts, contentions, and rebellions that the Nephites experienced, the Mulekites never seemed to be entirely convinced that the Nephites had a right to rule. ItWe seem to have a very simplified view of Nephite culture, politics, and society presented to us in the Book of Mormon. This is not surprising, as the books intent is not to teach history, but to bring us to Christ.True, the references to "many" records, their populaton numbes, and the gapping holes in the later dialogues between Mormon and Moroni show that infact the BoM is a spiritual record with only enough geography to describe the boundaries so future readers would know where the promises would be fulfilled!
cdowis Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) The spiritual factor had rank despite some evidence that some (maybe one) of the Mulekites were LARGE® than the Nephites:And they came down again that they might pitch battle against the Nephites. And they were led by a man whose name was Coriantumr; and he was a descendant of Zarahemla; and he was a dissenter from among the Nephites; and he was a LARGE and a mighty man. (Helaman 1:15)And, based on the number of internal conflicts, contentions, and rebellions that the Nephites experienced, the Mulekites never seemed to be entirely convinced that the Nephites had a right to rule. ItIt is likely that as descendants from the royal house of Mulek, from the house of Judah, they had a greater claim to the rights of government, to the kingship, than the Nephites. His name also suggests the influence of the Jaredites who were constantly fighting over the kingship.I agree that there was a core group who were unhappy with the arrangement. I see this as evidence that this is real history, not fiction. There were strong undercurrents of dissatisfaction, but we get no details. Leaving it to the large plates to fill in the missing pieces of the story. Edited May 2, 2012 by cdowis
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) So, based on one document (written by a Nephite) we are able to clearly see the Nephite language and culture was superior to that of the Mulekites. I doubt that a Mulekite would see himself in any way inferior to a Nephite.And, based on the number of internal conflicts, contentions, and rebellions that the Nephites experienced, the Mulekites never seemed to be entirely convinced that the Nephites had a right to rule. It was only the appearance of the Savior that seems to have truly united the two groups into one.We seem to have a very simplified view of Nephite culture, politics, and society presented to us in the Book of Mormon. This is not surprising, as the books intent is not to teach history, but to bring us to Christ.We are not told why when the Nephites and Mulekites merged, the Nephite royalty was chosen for the the merged group; but the fact remains that it was:Omni 1:19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.And the reason is not hard to guess. I would say the primary reason was that the Nephite kings held the priesthood, and were in fact prophets, seers, and revelators. This, coupled with the fact that the Nephites had been favored by the Lord with the preservation of the Hebrew sacred language and records were the deciding factors in my opinion. For example, we are informed in Omni 1:14 that Zarahemla and his people greatly rejoiced because the Lord had sent them the Nephites with the record the Jews:14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.That, coupled with the high esteem that the Israelites had for the prophetic office, I would say were the deciding factors in choosing the Nephite royal line for the entire group. Edited May 2, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) And they came down again that they might pitch battle against the Nephites. And they were led by a man whose name was Coriantumr; and he was a descendant of Zarahemla; and he was a dissenter from among the Nephites; and he was a LARGE and a mighty man. (Helaman 1:15)Nephi was also a large and mighty man:1 Nephi 4:31 And now I, Nephi, being a man large in stature, and also having received much strength of the Lord, therefore I did seize upon the servant of Laban, and held him, that he should not flee.That means he must have been a Jaredite I guess. And so was Saul, no doubt:1 Samuel 9:2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.1 Samuel 10:23 And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward. Edited May 2, 2012 by zerinus
Que Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 How do we know that Mosiah and company knew they were from the Old World at first meeting?It also wouldn't be too hard to trace a common origin even across a language barrier. Bible stories passed down amongst the Zarahemlites?If both groups had the Law of Moses, or at least remnants of it, as a basis for behaviour, then those practices may have been distinct and unusual enough to shout "Children of Israel" louder than any language. Subsequntly, it may have become evident that the group with written records were more closely adhering to the Law and their superiority in that way may have been evident?
DWhitmer Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Nephi was also a large and mighty man...That means he must have been a Jaredite I guess.Your sarcasm will better serve somewhere else. Everything is relative. Nephi was not so large as to be able to physically restrain his brothers was he? In any case, the archaeological record in the area of ones model should contain the bones of giants - if it is the true area. Just so happens that western New York does.As to the other possible reasons beside the spiritual, is of course their knowledge of making tools, using tools and woodwork that was taught to Nephi by God. Not that hard to fill in the rest. It's near impossible to fake demeanor. All considered, they were miles apart.
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) How do we know that Mosiah and company knew they were from the Old World at first meeting?It also wouldn't be too hard to trace a common origin even across a language barrier. Bible stories passed down amongst the Zarahemlites?Omni 1:18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates.Misiah also being a seer and revelator, would have been able to determine that by revelation without difficulty. Edited May 2, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Your sarcasm will better serve somewhere else.It serves me quite well actually. was not so large as to be able to physically restrain his brothers was he?How do you know he wasn't? Just because he chose not to fight his older brothers out of respect for them, and to set them a good example, it doesn't mean that he couldn't have. He had the faith to believe that the Lord would deliver him, and He did. Edited May 2, 2012 by zerinus
ksfisher Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 We are not told why when the Nephites and Mulekites merged, the Nephite royalty was chosen for the the merged group; but the fact remains that it was:Omni 1:19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.And the reason is not hard to guess. I would say the primary reason was that the Nephite kings held the priesthood, and were in fact prophets, seers, and revelators. This, coupled with the fact that the Nephites had been favored by the Lord with the preservation of the Hebrew sacred language and records were the deciding factors in my opinion. For example, we are informed in Omni 1:14 that Zarahemla and his people greatly rejoiced because the Lord had sent them the Nephites with the record the Jews:14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.That, coupled with the high esteem that the Israelites had for the prophetic office, I would say were the deciding factors in choosing the Nephite royal line for the entire group.When talking about the Israelite "high esteem...for the prophetic office" we should recall that many prophets were killed by these Israelites. Omni 1:17 says that the people of Zarahemla "denied the being of their creator." If they are not believers why would they change with the appearance of Mosiah's Nephites? Do people convert to the church today because it's shown to them that their great-great grandparents were members? Of course not.It is not plausible that Zarahemla would turn over rulership of his people to a group of refugees just because one of them claims to be a prophet of a god that he, Zarahemla, doesn't believe in. Nor do I believe that Zarahemla would be in such awe of the Nephites language, ability to write, or their written records, that he would disinherit his own family and hand the kingdom over to Mosiah. Other factors, unmamed by Amaleki, must be at work here. 1
Log Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Other factors, unmamed by Amaleki, must be at work here.An excellent insight.
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 When talking about the Israelite "high esteem...for the prophetic office" we should recall that many prophets were killed by these Israelites.Although they might have killed them in their times of wickedness, culturally they still held them in high esteem. For example, the Nephites in their time of greatest wickedness, choose a prophet, Mormon, to be their leader.Omni 1:17 says that the people of Zarahemla "denied the being of their creator." If they are not believers why would they change with the appearance of Mosiah's Nephites?For the same reason that they "rejoiced exceedingly" at the preservation of the Nephite sacred records.
Log Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) For example, the Nephites in their time of greatest wickedness, choose a prophet, Mormon, to be their leader.Not because he was a prophet, but because he was a big guy."And it came to pass in that same year there began to be a war again between the Nephites and the Lamanites. And notwithstanding I being young, was large in stature; therefore the people of Nephi appointed me that I should be their leader, or the leader of their armies." Edited May 2, 2012 by Log
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 It is not plausible that Zarahemla would turn over rulership of his people to a group of refugees just because one of them claims to be a prophet of a god that he, Zarahemla, doesn't believe in. Nor do I believe that Zarahemla would be in such awe of the Nephites language, ability to write, or their written records, that he would disinherit his own family and hand the kingdom over to Mosiah. Other factors, unmamed by Amaleki, must be at work here.See above.
Log Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) See above.Insufficient. See above. Edited May 2, 2012 by Log
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Not because he was a prophet, but because he was a big guy."And it came to pass in that same year there began to be a war again between the Nephites and the Lamanites. And notwithstanding I being young, was large in stature; therefore the people of Nephi appointed me that I should be their leader, or the leader of their armies."But still, he was a prophet, and a great one, and they knew it.
Log Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 But still, he was a prophet, and a great one, and they knew it.Show me in the text where that is supported.
Log Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Plenty sufficient, see above.Completely insufficient. See above. And CFR.
zerinus Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Show me in the text where that is supported.Moroni 9:4 Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them.
Recommended Posts