Continuing from the last seven posts about the Mulekites, and how Mulek
escaped from Jerusalem and reached the Land of Promise, and how he and his
people joined with Mosiah and the Nephites in the Land of Zarahemla.
Specifically, the following is the continuation of John L. Sorenson’s writings
on Mulek being taken to the Land of Promise by Phoenician sailors, with the
conclusion of his issues and our responses listed below:
Sorenson: “Third, the Sidon River
probably enters the east sea no great distance from this city of Mulek…”
Response: “Probably” is not a cause or point to be made. There is
nothing in the scriptural record to tell us where the mouth of the Sidon River
was, except that it emptied into a sea. It could have been the West Sea or the
Sea that Divided the Land. Even if it was the Sea East, it could have been
anywhere along that seacoast, not necessarily around the city of Mulek.
Sorenson: “…suggesting a
plausible route along which the ancestors of Zarahemla and his people “came…up
into the south wilderness” (Alma 22:31) to their city on the upper river where
the Nephites later found them.”
Response: First of all, Zarahemla, where the Mulekites landed and
Mosiah later found them (Omni 1:16), is a low, flat ground, near the sea—not up
or near an upper river. In fact, no river is mentioned in connection with
Zarahemla, except the Sidon to the east beyond the Land of Zarahemla.
Sorenson: “To this evidence may be
added…”
Response: This is not evidence. It is not even likely, as the above
suggests.
Sorenson: “…two
historico-geographical facts external to the scripture—the distance from
Palestine to the American narrow neck-promised land was shorter via the
Atlantic than the Pacific…”
Response: Distance has never seemed to be an issue with the Lord. He
takes people where he will as part of the trials and hardening process we
undergo on our path toward perfection. Lehi traveled some 1500 miles on an
eight-year journey to Bountiful. The Jaredites traveled that far or further on
their trip to the Great Sea. Why, now, with the Muleites, would we be thinking
distance is an issue for proof of a direction?
Sorenson: “…the expertise of
Mediterranean mariners was oriented westward not eastward into the Indian and Pacific
Oceans.”
Response: The chances of Mediterranean mariners being involved during
the siege of Jerusalem by the Babyonians who controlled the entire eastern
Mediterranean sea coast from Turkey to Egypt (and to whom the Phoenicians were
then impressed subjects), in spiriting away members of the Royal Family that
Nebuchadnezzar was hell-bent to capture, destroy and murder is so unlikely that
it really does not warrant any consideration at all.
Sorenson: “In my view, that they
traveled via the Atlantic is certain.”
Response: And so it is with all Sorenson’s writings—facts, history, and
reality seem to matter not one iota when it comes to his claims.
More of the erroneous ideas about the Mulekites can be seen in Hobby’s
continued writing (p31-32) when he states: “There
was a much larger potential problem affecting the freedom of the entire nation
of Zarahemla! Why so? Because the Nephites were ever sensitive to
the potential for Mulekite repatriation. And should they re-mix with the
Jaredite remnants to the north, it could doom the future of the already out
numbered Nephites.”
Scriptures have already been quoted to show that the Jaredites, as
Ether said, were all killed except for himself and Coriantumr. It has already been stated that the Jaredites
were destroyed prior to the arrival of the Mulekites and Nephites. And there is
no scripture to show any indication that the Nephites were fearful of the
Mulekites reuniting against them, or of joining any other group in this. The fact that Nephite dissenters stirred up
troubles for the Nephites, both as separate groups and among the Lamanites
gives no scriptural evidence that these were Mulekites as Hobby and others
suggest.
Ammon, a descendant of
Zarahemla, stands before king Limhi, and eventually leads them out of the
Lamanite lands and back to Zarahemla, saving the lives of all Limhi’s people
There are only two people in scripture identified as descendants of
Zarahemla, and neither of these were involved in insurrection, yet, Hobby and
others insist that groups like the city of Morianton (Alma 50:26) and the
"king-men" (Alma 51:5) were Mulekites, but such is not known from
scripture.
A case is often attempted that because the "king-men" were of
high birth (Alma 51:21) and wanted to return to king rule they had to be
Mulekites, since they were descendants of Mulek, of the house of Judah. However, besides the descendants of Mosiah I
and king Benjaman could also claim "high birth," as previously
mentioned, any true descendant of Nephi who had been the first king of the
Nephites (2 Nephi 5:18), or those who had followed him (Jacob 1:11) and their
lineage (Jacob 1:15). Since Mosiah was
king around 200 B.C., what about all the kings of the Nephites from those
listed in Jacob down to when Mosiah was proclaimed king?
It seems unwise and unwarranted that the white-hat wearing good guys
were always Nephites and the black hat bad guys, those who sought to destroy
freedom and liberty, such as the "king-men" were always Mulekites.
The scriptures make no such distinction, nor is there any indication that any
of these dissenters (other than Coriantumr) and groups who fought against the
Nephites were of some ethnic makeup.
Take Amlici as an example. There
was no suggestion he was a Mulekite or that the great war that followed in
which over 19,000 Nephites were killed had anything to do with ethnic groups. Amlici
was a man after the order of Nehor (Alma 2:1), a man of priestcraft that
endeavored to enforce it by the sword (Alma 1:12, 15), he sought to destroy the
church of God (Alma 2:4). Amlici wanted to be king (Alma 2:2) and the people
debated this issue (Alma 2:5) and voted (Alma 2:6) against Amlici (Alma 2:7),
but when his bid was was defeated, he was angry and stirred up his followers (Alma 2:8) who appointed him king
anyway (Alma 2:9).
Amlici's followers, all Nephites, were then called Amlicites and the
remainder called Nephites or the people of God (Alma 2:11). This was obviously not an ethnic difference,
but one of religion. Preparations for
war ensued (Alma 2:12-14). The Nephites were finally victorious (Alma 2:18)
under Alma's field generalship (Alma 2:16), with 12,532 Amlicites being killed
and 6,562 Nephites perishing in the fighting (Alma 2:19). The surviving
Amlicites joined with the Lamanites and marked themselves to distinguish them
from the Nephites (Alma 3:4) before they were finally destroyed (Alma 3:23).
Left: The Amlicites
are defeated; Right: A former Amlicite, after joining the Lamanites with other
Amlicite survivors, is marked as a Lamanite
These dissenters were all Nephites for the scriptures make no other
distinction. And as shown during
Mormon's time, Nephites were as evil as anyone, and ripe for destruction. Even in Jacob's time he claimed the Lamanites
were better than the Nephites in certain ways (Jacob 2:35).
(See the next post, “Who Were the Mulekites? Part IX,” for the
continuation of Sorenson’s points and our responses, and the conclusion of the
Mulekites and who they were)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment