Were There Two Landing Sites for the Mulekites? Part II

Continuing from the last post regarding the articles of Don R. Hender’s website that one of our readers sent us:    
    Article: “For the people of Mulek to be found in the 'heart of the land' in the city of Zarahemla rather than upon a coastal area, could they not have 'navigated' their way to the site of their colonial landing up and into the land south from Bountiful?”
    Response: Continuing from the previous article’s response at the end of the previous post, we need to look at where the Mulekites would have founded their city. First of all, Amaleki, the last last Nephite prophet, and contemporary with Mosiah I, traveled with Mosiah when the latter was told to flee the city of Nephi around 200 B.C., was with Mosiah when the Lord led them down into the Land of Zarahemla and to the city of Zarahemla (Omni 1:13).

Amaleki was present when Zarahemla told of his history, which included that his people: “came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. 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” (Omni 1:15-16-emphasis mine).
    Note that his words do not include the people of Zarahemla having traveled or journeyed in the wilderness after arriving in the Land of Promise. In fact, no comment is given about anything happening after their arrival except that they came into the land and dwelt there, and had dwelt in that same place until Mosiah arrived. Now if these Mulekites had landed elsewhere and traveled somewhere, surely a brief comment would have been given, for their wandering after leaving Jerusalem was included.
    The fact is, from what is written, the Mulektes reached the Land of Promise and came into the land and settled and remained there where Mosiah found them. And it should be well noted that no mention of them building any watercraft to sail upon the river Sidon and certainly their deep sea vessel would not have been able to sail up just any river, but would have required a very deep channel.
    Article: “Now consider this abridged account of Mormon concerning the lands of landing now takes a very interesting but almost always missed direction. Mormon has just recorded the approximate 1^st landing site of the Mulekite's group to be in north Bountiful just a little north of the Isthmus of the Narrow Neck of land.”

Response: First of all, nowhere in Omni does it suggest a “first landing” of the Mulekites (People of Zarahemla). The term “First Landing” has reference to the Jaredites (Alma 22:30), and shows that when eliminating the parenthetical phrase: “And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, it being the place of their first landing” (the parenthetical phrase is: “which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla,” and like any parenthetical phrase, by removing it there is no basic change to the statement. And when comparing this to Omni 1:16, it is clear the people of Zarahemla landed in the area where Mosiah found them, not elsewhere).
    The thing that Theorists need to keep in mind is that Mormon’s abridgment was not a puzzle, it was not a shortened version that left gaps of understanding, one where we are free to fill in the blanks. It is true there was far more he could have written about, but what he did write about was clear and precise and contains sufficient for us to understand it without a lot of adding, subtracting or changing. Also, Theorists, though they spend hours and hours in trying to understand the Hebrew origination of words, etc., seem to ignore the very basic rules of the English language, in which the Book of Mormon is written! There are numerous rules most people ignore, but Mormon’s writing often eliminates redundant expression and needless repetition, such as: “from the east to the west sea” (Alma 22:32, also 22:33), when “from the east sea to the west sea is intended (see an earlier post for a full explanation).
    And the verse quoted has to do with a landing in or around the Land of Desolation in the Land Northward, not in north Bountiful (a term never used in the scriptural record). Before giving an example, we also have to understand the use of the word “it” in this verse, since the English used is a translation of another language and cannot be judged by the English rule of repetition alone. That is: the verse should be read as: “even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful. And it (Bountiful) bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it (Desolation) being so far northward that it (Desolation) came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it (the land where the bones were found) being the place of their first landing and they came from there up into the south wilderness” (Alma 22:30). Shown differently:
    • even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful, and it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation
    • the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed,
    • the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, it being the place of their first landing
    Now the example mentioned earlier of how the original scripture was written before punctuation was added, showing a parenthetical phrase (i.e., not essential to the framing sentence) is: “And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed of whose bones we have spoken which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing and they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation and the land on the southward was called Bountiful it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind a part of which had come from the land northward for food.  
    This, when compared to the statement in Omni, is a very clear understanding of Mormon’s intent.
    Stated different, the parenthetical phrase is a phrase within a sentence where the segments of the sentence that precede and follow it can be attached to form a complete sentence without it—that is, it is not essential to the framing sentence. In addition, the single period in this overall scripture shows the separation from the description of the land separation, to a description of the two lands overall.
    Thus, it should be understood that: 1) the Mulekites did not land where Hender claims, and 2) the land separation is clearly stated, with a separation between the Land of Desolation on the north and the Land of Bountiful on the south. That separation, of course, is the narrow neck of land (Alma 22:32).
    Article: “He completes that thought telling of the Mulekites' course on up into the land of Zarahemla.”
    Response: the completed thought is: “And they came from there up into the south wilderness.” (Alma 22:31). Since the landing mentioned was in the Land Northward, the south wilderness was in the area of the Land of Desolation, not Zarahemla). Besides, the Land of Zarahemla is in a lowland valley or coastal area and not very likely you could go “up” to the Land of Zarahemla—the Lamanites are always shown to come “down” to Zarahemla, and no other comment in all of the scriptural record shows Zarahemla at any elevation.
(See the next post, “Were There Two Landing Sites for the Mulekites? Part III,” for more of Hender’s views on the Land of Promise from his articles on his website)