Was There A King Zarahemla?

[LinuxGal]

The people of Zarahemla united with the people of Mosiah, and Mosiah became their king, with hardly a peep from King Zarahemla.  Who was King Zarahemla? He was not explicitly mentioned, but Joseph Smith, translating the plates, wrote, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory. Now just as all the kings of the Nephites were named Nephi I, Nephi II, etc, it makes sense that all the kings of the Zarahemlans followed the same convention. So it must have been a King Zarahemla who gave Mosiah the genealogy of his fathers from his memory, and then surrendered his authority over the Zarahemlans without a fuss, which is a strangely passive response for a king.  The Zarahemlans had spent centuries fighting amongst themselves just as the Nephites and Lamanites did, but here comes Mosiah and they ditch their tribal identity to move in with him, becoming part of the People of Mosiah, without protest. Apparently Mosiah told them he would retain the name Zarahemla for his new kingdom, and that was enough.

[strappinglad]

One must read between the lines. Zarahemla was an older man when he met Mosiah. His wives had been unable to provide a male heir, not unlike the English kings, but he had several daughters. His youngest daughter was ill, nigh unto death and Mosiah healed her. In gratitude Zarahemla gave Mosiah half of the kingdom and his oldest daughter in marriage. The people were also very happy that the King's young daughter had been saved by Mosiah , and all swore an oath to sustain Mosiah as King when Zarahemla died. It wasn't 3 weeks later that Zerahemla fell off his tapir, I mean horse, and in the process , his femoral artery was severed by his fine steel sword. He died within minutes. Thus Mosiah inherited the entire kingdom. So, all in all, easy smeasy.

[LinuxGal]

One must read between the lines. Zarahemla was an older man when he met Mosiah. His wives had been unable to provide a male heir, not unlike the English kings, but he had several daughters. His youngest daughter was ill, nigh unto death and Mosiah healed her. In gratitude Zarahemla gave Mosiah half of the kingdom and his oldest daughter in marriage. The people were also very happy that the King's young daughter had been saved by Mosiah , and all swore an oath to sustain Mosiah as King when Zarahemla died. It wasn't 3 weeks later that Zerahemla fell off his tapir, I mean horse, and in the process , his femoral artery was severed by his fine steel sword. He died within minutes. Thus Mosiah inherited the entire kingdom. So, all in all, easy smeasy.

 

Let no one claim Mormons lack imagination.

[Kenngo1969]

Let no one claim Mormons lack imagination.

It seems you've already concluded that with respect to "the first Mormon" (Joseph Smith) and the Book of Mormon, anyway, and you seem unlikely to be dissuaded from that conclusion.  Thus, the "chain-yanking."   Some (perhaps many) people have concluded that the lack of detail with respect to certain things the Book of Mormon mentions but does not elaborate on proves that Joseph Smith was simply a careless forger.  Others, however, see it as evidence that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be: an abridgment of other records.

[The Nehor]

The Mulekites of Zarahemla were a fractured people (the account mentions warring amongst themselves). Most likely there were several power blocs vying for everything people usually vie for. Bringing in a foreign leader may have made sense as he was more likely to be fair as he was unaffiliated with any side. If King Mosiah was anything like his son King Benjamin you also have the advantage of a king who labors for his own upkeep and would not be a burden on anyone either.

 

The record is too scanty to be certain. I suspect Zarahemla's grasp on the throne was tenuous and an influx of new blood able to restore the people's lost religious and cultural heritage was seen as miraculous (the Mulekites did not bring any records).

[Robert F. Smith]

It may seem strange that Zarahemla, a direct descendant of King Zedekiah of Judah and of his son Mulek, would so readily give up the throne.  However, in the four centuries before the Nephites under Mosiah I^st fled north and discovered the Mulekites, the language of those illiterate Mulekites had undergone vast changes.  Unlike the Nephites, the Mulekites had no records, and thus no mojo.  They had also lost their religion.  So, even though they outnumbered the Nephites, the disorganized and desperate Mulekites were more than happy to accept the Nephite king as their ruler -- especially since he had brought the Brass Plates, and had exhibited the power to decipher the Jaredite records given to the Mulekites by Coriantumr (Omni tells us all of this).

 

LinuxGal is correct to suggest that Zarahemla is likely a dynastic name of successive rulers, as is Nephi -- which means "chief, captain" in ancient Egyptian (nfy) -- which is simply used like the name-title "Caesar."  Just so, the name Zarahemla is likely a dissimilated form of Hebrew zeraˁ hammělûkâ “royal descendant, seed-royal” (Jeremiah 41:1, 2 Kings 25:25, Ezekiel 17:13, Daniel 1:3).  Since the name Mulek comes from the same root, the meaning “royal descendant” may play on “a descendant of Mulek” (Mosiah 25:2), which is also indicated by Helaman 8:21 “seed of Zedekiah” = people of Zarahemla.

 

In her recent book, Temple Mysticism, Margaret Barker used such a meaning to suggest some complex wordplay designed to communicate the deeper meaning of the Servant Songs of Isaiah:  “To whom has the arm [zĕrōˁa] of the LORD been revealed?” she says can also mean “To whom has the seed/ son [zeraˁ] of the LORD been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1 ǁMosiah 14:1; cf. Mosiah 15:31 “The Lord hath made bare his holy arm”) without changing the Hebrew consonantal text – especially since the next line reads “he grew up before him as a suckling child” (Isaiah 53:2 [RSV “young plant”; LXX “little child”] ǁMosiah 14:2) – and this coheres with Isaiah 53:10 ǁMosiah 14:10 “he shall see his seed/ offspring,” which can also be read “he shall be revealed as the son.”[1]  This is merely part of the much broader liturgical and esoteric content of First Temple Israelite religion which Barker believes was jettisoned by Deuteronomistic revisionism – a revisionism which did not infect the Brass Plates or Book of Mormon.

[1] Barker, Temple Mysticism, 157, 162.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

The Mulekites of Zarahemla were a fractured people (the account mentions warring amongst themselves). Most likely there were several power blocs vying for everything people usually vie for. Bringing in a foreign leader may have made sense as he was more likely to be fair as he was unaffiliated with any side. If King Mosiah was anything like his son King Benjamin you also have the advantage of a king who labors for his own upkeep and would not be a burden on anyone either.

 

The record is too scanty to be certain. I suspect Zarahemla's grasp on the throne was tenuous and an influx of new blood able to restore the people's lost religious and cultural heritage was seen as miraculous (the Mulekites did not bring any records).

Similar circumstances may have enabled powerful interlopers from the central Mexican empire of Teotihuacan to enter into a Mayan city-state in Yucatan, take over and rule.  Even though the languages and traditions were quite different.

 

For example, still in late Book of Mormon times, Fire-is-Born, Lord of the West (Ochkin Kaloomte; formerly known as “Smoking-Frog”), arrived in Waka, Guatemala (El Perú, on the San Pedro River), on January 8, 378 A.D., from  far away Teotihuacán.  He was welcomed by the Mayan ruler there, Sun-Faced Jaguar.  By January 16th, Fire-is-Born had conquered Tikal, executed the king there, and installed the son of his patron (Spear-Thrower-Owl) as the new king – the ancestor of Stormy Sky, who recalled the event 60 years later on Tikal Stela 31.  Tikal would later reach out and conquer even Copán, Honduras, in A.D. 426 

 

See Geoffrey E. Braswell, ed., The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction (Univ of Texas Press, 2003), 

[LinuxGal]

Some (perhaps many) people have concluded that the lack of detail with respect to certain things the Book of Mormon mentions but does not elaborate on proves that Joseph Smith was simply a careless forger.  Others, however, see it as evidence that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be: an abridgment of other records. 

 

We admire the authors of great literature because they capture who we are in our humanity, warts and all, with Bill Shakespeare being one of the greatest.  I don't believe Genesis is historical, but I admire it as one of the central pillars of western literature.   Jacob comes across as an unbelievably authentic character.  All the women in Genesis are brilliant and determined to shape events to their advantage.  Think of Rebecca's manipulations to elevate Jacob over his brother.  Think of Tamar's bid to become mother of the line of Judah, down which the sceptre passed.  But in the book of Mormon there are only six women given names, Sariah, Isabel, Abish, Eve, Mary, and Sarah wife of Abraham.  The latter three were a restatement of women who appeared in the Old World scriptures. Naturally, the Book of Mormon is not on my stack of chick-lit for summer beach reading, but I find it impossible to consider it literature in any sense because as I said, literature captures us in our humanity, and women are fully half of humanity.  A film version of the Book of Mormon would look like Lord of the Rings minus Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett.  

[Avatar4321]

It might help if we had the full Book of Mormon. Unfortunately all we have is the account of nephi and Jacobs ministry and the abridgment of the records from mosiah on.

we don't have the book of Lehi to mosiah. That's several hundred years of history. Nor do we have what is in the sealed portion which is about 2/3 of the plates.

[LinuxGal]

It might help if we had the full Book of Mormon. Unfortunately all we have is the account of nephi and Jacobs ministry and the abridgment of the records from mosiah on.

 

Not so.  Jacob's son Enos had a turn engraving the metal plates, thence to his son Jarom, then Jarom's son Omni, his son Amarom writes one verse, then the plates pass to Amarom's brother Chemish, who only restates that they're supposed to record their history on the plates, but he records no history.  Chemish' son Abinadom says there's tussles between the Nephites and Lamanites (who knew?) and that he had a hand in that as well.  Then the plates go to Amaleki because God has given Abinadom nothing to write.  Amaleki covers the discovery of Zarahemla by Mosiah, survives until the death of Mosiah, and hands off the plates to King Benjamin.  So we have a complete record of what the descendants of Jacob considered to be important historically, recorded on the plates as instructed, between the ministry of Jacob and the reign of Mosiah.

[Freedom]

 Naturally, the Book of Mormon is not on my stack of chick-lit for summer beach reading, but I find it impossible to consider it literature in any sense because as I said, literature captures us in our humanity, and women are fully half of humanity.  A film version of the Book of Mormon would look like Lord of the Rings minus Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett.  

So you find no humanity in the book of Mormon? You do not see Nephi being abused by his brothers as humanity? The mothers of Helamans warriors as humanity? Abish is to be discarded by you? What of the daughters of Ismael or the women in Bountiful? You are dismissing a book that you are not reading with real intent. The bible treats women as property. The book of Mormon elevates them to be queens. 

[Freedom]

Not so.  Jacob's son Enos had a turn engraving the metal plates, thence to his son Jarom, then Jarom's son Omni, his son Amarom writes one verse, then the plates pass to Amarom's brother Chemish, who only restates that they're supposed to record their history on the plates, but he records no history.  Chemish' son Abinadom says there's tussles between the Nephites and Lamanites (who knew?) and that he had a hand in that as well.  Then the plates go to Amaleki because God has given Abinadom nothing to write.  Amaleki covers the discovery of Zarahemla by Mosiah, survives until the death of Mosiah, and hands off the plates to King Benjamin.  So we have a complete record of what the descendants of Jacob considered to be important historically, recorded on the plates as instructed, between the ministry of Jacob and the reign of Mosiah.

No we do not. We have a record of what they considered to be important spiritually but not historically. We do not have the historic record. 

[Calm]

So we have a complete record of what the descendants of Jacob considered to be important historically, recorded on the plates as instructed, between the ministry of Jacob and the reign of Mosiah.

Not not so....the small plates of Nephi contain what they saw as spiritually significant, they were not a text of the doings of the kings, wars and contention, etc.

I see Freedom made the same point....

Edited November 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

So you find no humanity in the book of Mormon? You do not see Nephi being abused by his brothers as humanity? The mothers of Helamans warriors as humanity? Abish is to be discarded by you? What of the daughters of Ismael or the women in Bountiful? You are dismissing a book that you are not reading with real intent. The bible treats women as property. The book of Mormon elevates them to be queens.

In the OT the women may be brilliant but choosing those two examples as examples is interesting given that Rebecca instead of going to her husband and challenging him to seek out spiritual confirmation of who was to get the blessing instead didn't give him a chance and resorted immediately to duplicity to meet her goal while Tamar resorted to incestuous prostitution with her father-in-law after he ignored her pleadings to him directly, both in essence degrading themselves in order to achieve some sort of power.

Neither seems to have sought out guidance from God or listened to the Spirit or depended on faith and God to achieve his will.

Edited November 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[LinuxGal]

No we do not. We have a record of what they considered to be important spiritually but not historically. We do not have the historic record. 

 

A review of the book of Jacob indicates you are correct.

[LinuxGal]

So you find no humanity in the book of Mormon? You do not see Nephi being abused by his brothers as humanity? The mothers of Helamans warriors as humanity? Abish is to be discarded by you? What of the daughters of Ismael or the women in Bountiful? You are dismissing a book that you are not reading with real intent. The bible treats women as property. The book of Mormon elevates them to be queens. 

 

Are you serious?  Women come off very well in the scriptures, starting with Eve, the world's first scientist, who investigated the claims made by Yahweh and the serpent with respect to the properties of the fruit of the Tree of Life and discovered that the serpent's claims were correct, that it would not kill her, but it would make her aware of the difference between good and evil.  She even ruled out gender differences in this effect by using her husband as a test subject as well. Rebecca based her decision to wed Isaac on the behavior of his servant, judging that if he was a good man his master must be as well.   Rachel used the general disgust of the patriarchs with female biology to smuggle Nathan's gods out of his camp.  Zipporah saved the life of Moses from the wrath of God. The faithfulness of Ruth resulted in Boaz marrying her, casting off the tradition of marrying only within the people of God.  In the book of Judges, Deborah was a female judge, Jael killed a Canaanite general, and Abimelecth ordered his armorbearer to run him through with a sword, lest men say ever afterward, "A woman killed him," which to a patriarch was a fate far worse than death by slow torture. The way rival women like Sarah and Hagar try to annihilate each other with glances, with "looks that kill" is such a hallmark of women's fiction, that combined with all these other incidents I suspect the Yawhist source was female.

[Avatar4321]

Considering the Book of Mormon is about Jesus Christ anyone else mentioned in it is purely to make the Savior more real in peoples lives.

[Vance]

Are you serious?  Women come off very well in the scriptures, starting with Eve, the world's first scientist, who investigated the claims made by Yahweh and the serpent with respect to the properties of the fruit of the Tree of Life and discovered that the serpent's claims were correct, that it would not kill her, . . .

 

Hate to break the news to you, but Eve is DEAD!  So, yes it did kill her.

[Gervin]

 The bible treats women as property.  

Laughably wrong or embarrassingly ignorant. Or both.

[rameumptom]

I see the Mulekites as having dwelt on the edge of Jaredite civilization for centuries.  As they became somewhat integrated, they lost their language, religion, etc.  The violent Jaredite wars forced Zarahemla and his people to flee south of the narrow neck of land and reestablish themselves in the new city of Zarahemla.  When Mosiah arrived, Zarahemla was older, having created his city possibly 50 years before. During that time, the Jaredites wiped themselves out (circa 250BC). King Coriantumr dwelt with them for 9 moons.  Zarahemla turned the rulership over to Mosiah for several possible reasons: 1. Mosiah held the records, 2. He was a weak king and saw Mosiah as strong, 3. Zarahemla recognized his people needed a different culture than the Jaredite culture they lived in for the last several centuries, 4. Mosiah's weapons and military skills were better than those of Zarahemla, 5. Zarahemla recognized Mosiah as a great prophet and turned things over to him.

 

The attempt to fix the Mulekite culture failed, as Jaredite names and secret combinations became a controlling and key feature among the Nephites within just a couple generations (Nehor, Korihor, Gadianton).

[LinuxGal]

I see the Mulekites as having dwelt on the edge of Jaredite civilization for centuries.  As they became somewhat integrated, they lost their language, religion, etc.  The violent Jaredite wars forced Zarahemla and his people to flee south of the narrow neck of land and reestablish themselves in the new city of Zarahemla. 

 

Ether 13:21 has a prophesy that says, "Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr."

 

What I get from that is that only Coriantumr lived to see this people who would inherit the land, so I find it unlikely that the Mulekites had begun to integrate with the Jaredites before they immolated themselves.

[The Nehor]

Ether 13:21 has a prophesy that says, "Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr."

 

What I get from that is that only Coriantumr lived to see this people who would inherit the land, so I find it unlikely that the Mulekites had begun to integrate with the Jaredites before they immolated themselves.

A possible interpretation but it says that his household would be destroyed which suggests his family (the royal line) was gone except for him, not that his people were exterminated to the last man. It is even possible the line continued amongst the Mulekites. Coriantumr lived there long enough to father children.

[theplains]

So you find no humanity in the book of Mormon? You do not see Nephi being abused by his brothers as humanity? The mothers of Helamans warriors as humanity? Abish is to be discarded by you? What of the daughters of Ismael or the women in Bountiful? You are dismissing a book that you are not reading with real intent. The bible treats women as property. The book of Mormon elevates them to be queens. 

 

The Bible shows that some women were treated as property. This is different from the statement you

make. As for the daughters of Ishmael, things did not turn out well for them.  Alma 3:6-7 says they

were cursed when the Lord put a mark upon them.

 

Regards,

Jim