The Wars Of The Mulekites=Others?

[Vance]

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.

You are assuming that he had access to a copy of the Law of Moses.

Omni 1:17 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 language 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.

Which they didn't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

but hardly one that God would settle in the Land North, even as he settled Lehi in the Land South.

You know, I am not a fan of assumption. You presume to speak for God. I don't appreciate that.

God had his reasons and your reasons are rather poor for trying to get some one to not believe in the BoM. try again. BTW take it to a different thread you are derailing this one.

[Aliwe]

God had his reasons and your reasons are rather poor for trying to get some one to not believe in the BoM. try again.

God blessed Lehi because he had been a faithful prophet, and so saved him out of Jerusalem (1 Nep 2:1-2). God had compassion on Ether for his faithfulness and so saved him and his family out of the confounding of languages at Babel (Ether 1:40-41). But Mulek had nothing to recommend him to the LORD, that we can see from scripture, yet he was still settled in America. That is what I wanted to ascertain.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

How easily you shoot down your straw man. If you can't respond with civility, please stay out of this thread.

Bernard

Edited June 22, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Maybe you could refer us to the detailed history of the Mulekites where this issue is discussed? Otherwise, please don't disrupt the thread.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

God blessed Lehi because he had been a faithful prophet, and so saved him out of Jerusalem (1 Nep 2:1-2). God had compassion on Ether for his faithfulness and so saved him and his family out of the confounding of languages at Babel (Ether 1:40-41). But Mulek had nothing to recommend him to the LORD, that we can see from scripture, yet he was still settled in America. That is what I wanted to ascertain.

How do you know that Mulek had nothing to recommend him to the Lord? The scriptures are silent on this. There is virtually no history of the Mulekites in the Book of

Mormon. What is your source of information about them?

Bernard

[Anijen]

It is not a fact that there were no "others".

That double negative means there were others. The Mayans, Olmecs, and other indigenous people? They were the others. Your point is out of all this growth and large population, and out of all this fighting the Nephites, the Lamanites, any other ites, and the people of Zarahemla (once Mulekites) never once interacted with others, simply because it does not specifically say so in the Book of Mormon? Incredibly poor and pathetic scholarship drivel.

Do you understand it now, or do you want me to try again?

Oh please, your pride is showing, and your condecension is insulting. Your ego is as thick and stubborn as your head. Your "try again" is a redundant display of foolishness and imbecility, which only magnify your close mindedness and blatant disregard to look at any other theory other than your own.

I have all the patience in the world.

A virtue you should cherish since it certainly is not humility.

If you still don't understand just let us know, and I will try again.

Believing that you have to lower yourself to my level and explain things more than once just shows how self satisfied you really are.

Cheers.

False amicability does not become you.

No. 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.

His point is; both are assumptions, not facts. Because no others are mentioned does not make it a "greater assumption"

Alwie wrote;

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:

Mulek was escaping. His future kingdom (back in the land of Juda) was the last thing on his mind. Another question what is the "LORD's procedure" for all new kings? Edited June 22, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[zerinus]

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."

The Lord's preference is that there should be no kings at all (1 Samuel 8; 12:16-19; 2 Nephi 5:18; Mosiah 29:30; D&C 38:21).

[poulsenll]

How much change occurs in relatively small isolated cultures?

A well studied example of this is described at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English

The appalachian area was settled prior to 1700 AD, a little over 300 years ago. Over this period of time, (comparable to the time between Mulek's arrival in the Americas and Mosiahs discovery of the people of Zarahemla), There has been so little change in the language, in fact it is closer to the original 17th century Elizabethan language than is to either American or British English, that speakers of the language have no difficulty in understanding modern English.

According to the BofM record, the language of the people of Zarahemla had changed so much that Mosiah had to have his languge taught to them before they could communicate.

Studies of the evolution of modern languages show that one of the main driving forces for change is assimilation of a smaller group into a larger language group. See discussion in above citation.

Based on these studies, it is a much more reasonable assumption to assume that the Mulekites lost their language as a result of mixing with others and that their many wars and contentions were both with each other and with some of the others shown to have been present by the archeological record.

Larry P

[ERayR]

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.

The written record is mostly to keep the beliefs and ordinances uncorrupted. A secondary benefit is that it would help the faithful, who had access to the written records, keep the language of worship undefiled. Certainly intermingling and communicating with "others" in daily and commercial endeavors would corrupt the groups language of commerce.

[ERayR]

No. 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.

Greater assumption? By who?

[ERayR]

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."

I don't remember anywhere that it says that the Lord brought Mulek's group. They were exscaping from invading armies and hitched a ride with some Phoenician explorers.

[zerinus]

Greater assumption? By who?

By the logic of the argument.

[ERayR]

By the logic of the argument.

You are a clever "Lil Rascal".

[Aliwe]

I don't remember anywhere that it says that the Lord brought Mulek's group. They were exscaping from invading armies and hitched a ride with some Phoenician explorers.

Helaman 6:10 Now the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south.

[ERayR]

Helaman 6:10 Now the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south.

Thanks. I have read that I don't know how many times and just glossed over it. No wonder we get admonition to keep reading over and over.

[Aliwe]

Thanks. I have read that I don't know how many times and just glossed over it. No wonder we get admonition to keep reading over and over.

This is quite a surprising and delightful response. I fully expected to be confronted with a defense to the effect that Mulek made his way to America under his own initiative with the Phoenicians, but then the Lord intervened to settle him in the lands north.

[zerinus]

double

Edited June 22, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Thanks. I have read that I don't know how many times and just glossed over it. No wonder we get admonition to keep reading over and over.

Also:

2 Nephi 1:

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Omni 1:

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.

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.

[ERayR]

This is quite a surprising and delightful response. I fully expected to be confronted with a defense to the effect that Mulek made his way to America under his own initiative with the Phoenicians, but then the Lord intervened to settle him in the lands north.

I haven't ruled that out yet but to jump either way requires much more study than I have yet been able to give this.

[ERayR]

Also:

2 Nephi 1:

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

I have studied this a bit and fully believe it. However, I think that you and I might have a different understanding of what this means.

[Bernard Gui]

By the logic of the argument.

A is X

B is X

Therefore, C must be X and only X

This is not logical.

Bernard

Edited June 23, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

How much change occurs in relatively small isolated cultures?

A well studied example of this is described at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English

The appalachian area was settled prior to 1700 AD, a little over 300 years ago. Over this period of time, (comparable to the time between Mulek's arrival in the Americas and Mosiahs discovery of the people of Zarahemla), There has been so little change in the language, in fact it is closer to the original 17th century Elizabethan language than is to either American or British English, that speakers of the language have no difficulty in understanding modern English.

According to the BofM record, the language of the people of Zarahemla had changed so much that Mosiah had to have his languge taught to them before they could communicate.

Studies of the evolution of modern languages show that one of the main driving forces for change is assimilation of a smaller group into a larger language group. See discussion in above citation.

Based on these studies, it is a much more reasonable assumption to assume that the Mulekites lost their language as a result of mixing with others and that their many wars and contentions were both with each other and with some of the others shown to have been present by the archeological record.

Larry P

Thank you for the article. I now realize my grandfather and his twin brothers spoke Appalachian English.

Do you know of any discussions on this passage?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

This is quite a surprising and delightful response. I fully expected to be confronted with a defense to the effect that Mulek made his way to America under his own initiative with the Phoenicians, but then the Lord intervened to settle him in the lands north.

Would you kindly respond to my questions?

Thanks.

Bernard

[poulsenll]

Bernard

I have made similar comments in the past on this issue. It comes up every time there is a discussion of others and this verse is used to suggest that there may have been others. Although I am no expert in linguistics, this subject and the evolution of language has always interested me, especially the languages of Mesoamerica.

Larry P

Edited June 23, 2012 by poulsenll