In
a book written by David A. Palmer entitled In
Search of Cumorah, one would think the title should have been “In search of
the truth,” since there seems to be little of that in the writings. Take,
for example, Chapter 7, entitled “From Cumorah to Zarahemla.”
Palmer:
“The Book of Mormon was not written as a
comprehensive history, but rather as a record of the people of Nephi.”
Response:
Actually, the Book of Mormon was written as another testimony of Jesus Christ,
involving three distinct peoples, first the Jaredites, then Lehi and his
family, called the Nephites and Lamnites, and also the Mulekites, referred to as the
People of Zarahemla. While it is not a comprehensive history of these groups,
what history and geography that is included should be dealt with far more reverently than many theorists do, especially Palmer in his book.
Palmer:
“It is, therefore, only from occasional
glimpses that we catch the impact upon the Nephites of their contemporaries.”
Response:
One can only ask, what contemporaries? The word contemporary is defined as an
adjective “living or occurring at the same time” and “belonging to or occurring
in the present.” It is defined as a noun as “A person or thing living or
existing at the same time as another.” Now, since the groups we know about,
that are suggested and referred to in the scriptural record are all accounted
for, and we know sufficient about them to understood who they were and what
they were doing there, one can only wonder, again, at who or what Palmer is
referring.
Being
a vowed Mesoamericanist as his book so clearly points out, we can surmise that
Palmer is referring to other cultures, peoples, and civilizations that he
claims (along with all other Mesoamericanists) as having existed in the land
prior to and during Nephite times, but never mentioned in the scriptural
record.
Regarding
his comment, what impact would Palmer want to know of the Nephites as seen from
other cultures? We have a very clear view of the Nephites, from both prophets
views and from the Lord. There isn’t much about the Nephites we are not
provided to fully understand them.
Palmer:
“The story of Mormon’s Cumorah would not
be complete without bringing into focus the Mulekites, a major group of people
who bridged the historical gap between destruction of the Jaredites and the
rise of Nephite culture.”
Response:
Actually, the Mulekites or people of Zarahemla, knew absolutely nothing about
the Jaredites. Their exposure to Coriantumr, the last Jaredite left (besides
Ether) after their internal war of annihilation, wandered into the Zarahemla settlement at some point
(years?) following that final battle. No one could understand him, he spoke a
language they did not know, he had no way of communicating with them, yet
wanted to at least leave some knowledge of he and his people for future
peoples.
When
Mosiah arrived with the remnant of the righteous Nephites at some point later,
Zarahemla, the chief or ruler of the Mulekites, wanted to know what had been
written on that stone, which Coriantumr had engraved. So it was brought to
Mosiah who interpreted it by the “gift and power of God” (Omni 1:20).
There
was no bridging the gap for the Muleites between the Jareidtes and themselves,
or the Nephites. Nor did Mosiah know anything about such a people. This was all
information new to both the Nephites and the Muleites, and not completely
uncovered until when the Ether record was later translated.
Palmer:
“We will…follow the Mulekites as they developed their culture in the land of
Zarahemla and branched out into other areas.”
Response: In Omni, we learn from an eye-witness,
the prophet Amaleki, who wrote of the Mulekites: “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. 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).
Now to make sure there is no question about this,
Amaleki tells us:
1. The Mulekites left Jerusalem “at the time Zedekiah, king of Judah, was
carried away into Babylon.” This eliminates the idea that they left in any
other year than the one in which Jerusalem fell and Zedekiah was captured,
which was either 587 or 586 B.C.
2. The Lord guided the Mulekites “across the great
water,” which sounds like they were not involved with anyone else, such as the
Phoenicians, but came like Lehi, by themselves, under the Lord’s specific
guidance.
3. They came across the great waters “and into the land where Mosiah discovered
them.” This means that where Mosiah found them is where the Mulekites
landed and lived, “and they had dwelt
there from that time forth.” So where the Mulekites landed is where Mosiah
found them, which would be along the coast—so that is where the city of
Zarahemla was located.
Now as clear as this is, Palmer goes on to write
about “Two Mulekite Landings.”
Palmer: “We
are told that the Mulekites landed in more than one place.”
Response: No, we are not told that. Amaleki makes it quite
clear that the Mulekites landed along the seashore, which was where Mosiah
found them. His erreoneous belief comes from a misunderstanding of Alma
22:30-31, which reads (and he quotes) “on the north, 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 [by the
Jaredites] and been destroyed, of whose bones [Jaredite] we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of
Zarahemla [Limhi’s 43-man expedition],
it [where the bones were found] being
the place of their [Jaredites] first
landing. And they [Jaredites] came
from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward [of the narrow neck] was called
Desolation, and the land on the southward [of
the narrow neck] 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” (Alma 29-31, italics added for explanation).
Another
scripture that Palmer misunderstands, which leads to a furthering of this idea
that the Mulekites landed “north of the isthmus,” as he puts it is: “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”
(Helaman 6:10). The problem is, nearly all Mesoamericanists combine the terms
Land Northward and the Land Southward as synonymous with the terms Land North
and Land South. But they are not the same.
Mormon
makes this quite clear when he wrote of Capt. Moroni, “And it came to pass that
when he had poured out his soul to God, he
named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in
fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south—a chosen land, and the
land of liberty” (Alma 46:17, emphasis added), which clearly shows that the
land in the Land Southward was considered in two parts, i.e., a land in the
north (of the Land Southward) and a land in the south (of the Land Southward).
This dividing point between the Land North and the Land South in the Land
Southward was undoubtedly the narrow strip of wilderness which divided the
northern lands from the southern lands.
Taken together, we
can see where the Mulekites were always in the Land Southward, never in the
Land Northward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment