Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 With whom did the Mulekites fight?Did their language become corrupted partly because of contact with other peoples, or only becausethey had not brought records with them? This passage does not indicate a causal link.Omni15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. 16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.Bernard
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 With whom did the Mulekites fight?Probably with themselves, just like the Lehi-ites did after them, and the Jaredites did before them.
cinepro Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) It also raises the question of why Mosiah's group of Nephites, journeying through the wilderness, found anything unusual about the Zarahemlites. If there were other people living throughout the land, and the Zarahemlites had intermingled with the natives and lost their original language (and the Nephites had converted and intermingled with the natives as well), then why were they notable? What would be unusual about a group of people finding another group of people in the land?And did Mosiah take the time to communicate across the language barrier with every group of natives that he met, deciphering their origin story just in case they had come from Jerusalem centuries earlier as well?Omni13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.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. 15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. Edited June 21, 2012 by cinepro
zerinus Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Probably with themselves, just like the Lehi-ites did after them, and the Jaredites did before them.And Adam-ites had done before them, and Noah-ites had done before them, and . . .
Anijen Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) And Adam-ites had done before them, and Noah-ites had done before them, and . . . Adamites, Noahites? Really?Both Adamites and Noahites would be everyone alive at that time would it not?To equate the Mulekites to your "Adamites' or Noahites" is basically saying the Mulekites were all humans in the world at that time.If one argues the Mulekites lived near or assimilated with the Nephites or the Lamanites and believe in a Mesoamerican setting, the evidence shows they had plenty of company. To say they only interconnected with Lamanites or Nephites while at the same time avoiding all the Mayans etc. is taking a very odd and hard to prove stance.If one argues that the Jaredites Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites etc, lived in the Great Lakes area (Heartland setting) they still would have company not as much as in Mesoamerica, but plenty of Hopewell, or other variety of Native American Indian etc.There were others plain and simple. Odds are the people of the Book of Mormon knew some of them, traded with some, taught some, converted some. Odds also are in favor that some of the Book of Mormon people were lost to those indigenous cultures. My personal opinion most of the setting of the Book of Mormon was in fact in Mesoamerica and almost immediately after arriving they assimilated themselves into small hamlets of the indigenous people there. Edited June 21, 2012 by Jeff Holt
zerinus Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Both Adamites and Noahites would be everyone alive at that time would it not?Yes, and they managed to figure out a way of fighting among themselves.To equate the Mulekites to your "Adamites' or Noahites" is basically saying the Mulekites were all humans in the world at that time.No. It means that they could figure out a way of fighting among themselves too, without help from outside.If one argues the Mulekites lived near or assimilated with the Nephites or the Lamanites and believe in a Mesoamerican setting, the evidence shows they had plenty of company. To say they only interconnected with Lamanites or Nephites while at the same time avoiding all the Mayans etc. is taking a very odd and hard to prove stance.Irrelevant. The question was, Does the fact that they fought among themselves imply that there were "others"? The answer is No.If one argues that the Jaredites Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites etc, lived in the Great Lakes area (Heartland setting) they still would have company not as much as in Mesoamerica, but plenty of Hopewell, or other variety of Native American Indian etc.Irrelevant to the question. See above.There were others plain and simple. Odds are the people of the Book of Mormon knew some of them, traded with some, taught some, converted some. Odds also are in favor that some of the Book of Mormon people were lost to those indigenous cultures. My personal opinion most of the setting of the Book of Mormon was in fact in Mesoamerica and almost immediately after arriving they assimilated themselves into small hamlets of the indigenous people there."Ods" maybe; but still irrelevant to the question.
Anijen Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) The question was, With whom did the Mulekites fight?Does the fact that they fought among themselves imply that there were "others"? The answer is NoCFR where in the text says they just solely fought among themselves? Man up with the truth that this is just your interpretation.Mulek was a son of Zedikiah it would seem that Mulek probably spoke the same language that Lehi and his family did since they were both from the land of Juda, yet when the descendants of the two families met at Zarahemla they could not understand each other. How did the language become corrupted from each other without the influences of others. Please do not use the example of Latin. Latin was influenced by other languages.. Edited June 22, 2012 by Jeff Holt
zerinus Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) With whom did the Mulekites fight?CFR where in the text says they just solely fought among themselves? Man up with the truth that this is just your interpretation.The text doesn't say that. The implication of the question was that there must have been "outsiders" for Mulekites to have fought with. The answer is that that is a false and unnecessary assumption. The existence of "outsiders" is not a necessary precondition for them to have engaged in wars and contentions. Mulek was a son of Zedikiah it would seem that Mulek probably spoke the same language that Lehi and his family did since they were both from the land of Juda, yet when the descendants of the two families met at Zarahemla they could not understand each other. How did the language become corrupted from each other without the influences of others. Please do not use the example of Latin. Latin was influenced by other languages.That question has already been answered at great length elsewhere, and need not be answered again. Edited June 22, 2012 by zerinus
Anijen Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) The text doesn't say that. Then you should not state it as a fact."Does the fact that they fought among themselves imply that there were "others"? The answer is No." (emphasis mine) Edited June 22, 2012 by Jeff Holt
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Mulek was a son of Zedikiah it would seem that Mulek probably spoke the same language that Lehi and his family did since they were both from the land of Juda, yet when the descendants of the two families met at Zarahemla they could not understand each other. How did the language become corrupted from each other without the influences of others. Please do not use the example of Latin. Latin was influenced by other languages.Let's look at just 401 years of English, from 1611 to 2012.1 The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.2 He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters.3 He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake.4 Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.5 Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer.6 Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for euer.1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,3 he refreshes my soul. He guides me along the right paths for his name’s sake.4 Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life,and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.That is how much a language with a large installed base changes by itself. Now take two small groups of people who speak 1611 Early Modern English, and separate them for the same period of time. Instances of jargon unique to each group begin to intrude. One group might have end up in the desert where there are no "quiet waters" only wells and oases. One group might herd cattle on treeless plains where rods are hard to come by but bullwhips substitute for them. And so it goes.
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) That is how much a language with a large installed base changes by itself. Now take two small groups of people who speak 1611 Early Modern English, and separate them for the same period of time. Instances of jargon unique to each group begin to intrude. One group might have end up in the desert where there are no "quiet waters" only wells and oases. One group might herd cattle on treeless plains where rods are hard to come by but bullwhips substitute for them. And so it goes.It seems probable that to get so much language drift as described in the Book of Mormon one or both groups would have been affected by other languages. Edited June 22, 2012 by ERayR 3
volgadon Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Let's look at just 401 years of English, from 1611 to 2012.1 The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.2 He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters.3 He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake.4 Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.5 Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer.6 Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for euer.1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,3 he refreshes my soul. He guides me along the right paths for his name’s sake.4 Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life,and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.That is how much a language with a large installed base changes by itself. Now take two small groups of people who speak 1611 Early Modern English, and separate them for the same period of time. Instances of jargon unique to each group begin to intrude. One group might have end up in the desert where there are no "quiet waters" only wells and oases. One group might herd cattle on treeless plains where rods are hard to come by but bullwhips substitute for them. And so it goes.Your examples aren't that radical. Now, compare them to pre-Norman English, that is a difference. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 Probably with themselves, just like the Lehi-ites did after them, and the Jaredites did before them.What evidence can you present?Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 It also raises the question of why Mosiah's group of Nephites, journeying through the wilderness, found anything unusual about the Zarahemlites. If there were other people living throughout the land, and the Zarahemlites had intermingled with the natives and lost their original language (and the Nephites had converted and intermingled with the natives as well), then why were they notable? What would be unusual about a group of people finding another group of people in the land?And did Mosiah take the time to communicate across the language barrier with every group of natives that he met, deciphering their origin story just in case they had come from Jerusalem centuries earlier as well?Please don't move this off topic.Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 The text doesn't say that. The implication of the question was that there must have been "outsiders" for Mulekites to have fought with. The answer is that that is a false and unnecessary assumption. The existence of "outsiders" is not a necessary precondition for them to have engaged in wars and contentions. That question has already been answered at great length elsewhere, and need not be answered again.It is also false to say they fought among themselves. It is just as reasonable to assume they fought with others.It does not prove there were others, but it does suggest there could have been. Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 That is how much a language with a large installed base changes by itself. Now take two small groups of people who speak 1611 Early Modern English, and separate them for the same period of time. Instances of jargon unique to each group begin to intrude. One group might have end up in the desert where there are no "quiet waters" only wells and oases. One group might herd cattle on treeless plains where rods are hard to come by but bullwhips substitute for them. And so it goes.But would they be unintelligible to each other?Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 oh deer, not this again.. Has this passage been discussed before?Bernard
Sine Saw Square Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Without going down the "others, no others" rabbit hole, I notice something of an assumption that I guess I learned from our traditional reading of this chapter. That is that the Mulekites language became corrupted because they brought no record with them, but the text doesn't say this. It simply states both conditions. It actually seems to link the lack of records with them denying their creator which helps to justify Nephi's actions in obtaining the brass plates and with maintaining their lineage. That's why the Mulekites where so excited to meet the Nephites. The Mulekites being an example of a people who were dwindling in unbelief. 1
zerinus Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Then you should not state it as a fact."Does the fact that they fought among themselves imply that there were "others"? The answer is No." (emphasis mine)I am not stating that "there were no others" as a fact. What I am stating is that the argument that there must have been "others" just because they had wars and contentions is a false argument. I am stating that as a fact. It is a fact that that is a false argument. It is not a fact that there were no "others". Do you understand it now, or do you want me to try again? I have all the patience in the world. If you still don't understand just let us know, and I will try again. Cheers. Edited June 22, 2012 by zerinus
Sine Saw Square Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 And did Mosiah take the time to communicate across the language barrier with every group of natives that he met, deciphering their origin story just in case they had come from Jerusalem centuries earlier as well?I can imagine multiple, plausible scenarios how this would go down. The Nephites could have met and traded with any number of tribes or villages along their journey that they deemed not worthy of mention. Then they find the Mulekites. They see some artifact or building style or recognize some common written symbols or spoken words and want to know more. Maybe they dressed differently. Maybe the Mulekites recognized something familiar in the Nephites. Discovering and recording this group was very significant to the Nephites' spiritual narrative. They were from the same motherland. They're story proved Lehi right in his prophesies the Jerusalem would be destroyed. 1
zerinus Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 It is also false to say they fought among themselves. It is just as reasonable to assume they fought with others.It does not prove there were others, but it does suggest there could have been. BernardNo. The greater assumption is that they fought among themselves. That is because (1) no "others" are mentioned, and (2) every isolated community mentioned in the Book of Mormon has eventually ended up fighting among themselves, such as the Jaredites and the Lehites. 1
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 It actually seems to link the lack of records with them denying their creator which helps to justify Nephi's actions in obtaining the brass plates and with maintaining their lineage. That's why the Mulekites where so excited to meet the Nephites. The Mulekites being an example of a people who were dwindling in unbelief.I wonder why the LORD would bother to brink Mulek into the land north if he didn't even try to follow the LORD's procedure for all new kings:"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them."
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I wonder why the LORD would bother to brink Mulek into the land north if he didn't even try to follow the LORD's procedure for all new kings:"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them."Dunno, you should take to God about that one. Besides that this is a pure distraction to this thread. Edited June 22, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Dunno, you should take to God about that one. Besides that this is a pure distraction to this thread.I disagree. The Law of Moses clearly stated that the newly-enthroned king must cause a scroll of the Law to be written, or perhaps even write one himself, and to read it every day of his life. Mulek, as the son of king Zedekiah of Judah, would be intimately acquainted with this divine mandate. That he would fail to do so (or be unable to do so because he lost the scroll of the Law) indicates that Mulek was either an incompetent prince, or a disobedient prince, but hardly one that God would settle in the Land North, even as he settled Lehi in the Land South.
Recommended Posts