Saturday, December 26, 2020

The Landing of the Mulekites – Part III

 Continued from the previous post, “The Landing of the Mulekites – Part II,” for more information on where the Mulekites landed and subsequently lived. Continuing with an understanding of an accurate discussion about Alma 22:30-31.

Left: The People of Zarhemla originally came from Jerusalem just like Lehi, landing around Lima at a place now called Pachacamac, where they spent all their days until Mosiah discovered them; Bottom: Partial ruins of an entrance to Pachacamac


Now, for further evidence, we need only take a look at another scripture, rarely quoted by the Book of Mormon scholars, which makes this understanding quite clear.  It is found in Omni, and was written by Amaleki who was a first-hand witness to the events he described for he lived in the days of Mosiah, saw his death, and the reign of King Benjamin (Omni 1:23). He was part of the group of Nephites that escaped to the city of Zarahemla and knew the Mulekites first hand. He wrote:

 “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 wlderness, 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 1:16-17)

That is, the Lord led the Mulekites across the great sea to land in the area where Mosiah discovered them, i.e., Zarahemla. And they had lived there ever since their landing. 

Theorist Joseph Allen attempts to change this simple understanding of Amaleki's statement by saying: "The forefathers of the people of Zarahemla journeyed in the wildereness and crossed the great waters and that subsequently a colony of Mulekites migrated to an area they called the Land of Zarahemla." But Amaleki does not say that—he says:  and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them" which is quite different. 

Allen tries to instill a belief that the Mulekites, once having landed in the Americas, spent some time somewhere, then subsequent to that, migrated into the land where Mosiah found them.  This is the type of thing that Book of Mormon scholars try to do to alter or change the scriptural record so it meets their specific models and beliefs.  But Amaleki does not say they landed somewhere and subsequent to that landing they migrated somewhere. He says quite simply that the Lord brought Mulek across the great waters and into the land where Mosiah found them, and that they had dwelt there from that time forth. 

There is nothing complicated about this scriptural statement. The Mulekites landed in the north of the Land Southward, in the land they called Zarahemla, where they had always dwelt and where they were when Mosiah found them around 200 B.C.  Thus, they never subsequently migrated anywhere for they lived in that land where they first landed up until the time Mosiah found them. And since Amaleki was an eye-witness to the events at Zarahemla and the uniting of the Nephites and Mulekites, and the first-hand recounting of Zarahemla of his genealogy, which was written down but not on the plates from which Omni has been abridged (Omni 1:18), his account should be quite convincing. 

Despite this simplicity, Book of Mormon scholars, insisting that the Mulekites landed in the Land Northward to satisfy their Mesoamerican or other model, say: "It is possible to draw an incorrect conclusion from vs. 16—Alma may appear to believe that the people of Zarahemla had arrived in the Land Southward and remained there ever since."

Alma may appear to believe? Alma? Appear? The funny thing is, Alma did not write that! Amaleki did (which Mormon abridged), and he was an eye-witness to the first meeting between the Nephites and the Mulekites in Zarahemla. Consequently, whatever Amaleki wrote, he not only believed it to be true, he had Zarahemla and the other Mulekites to ask for clarification if there was any doubt! It seems the only incorrect conclusion drawn in this question is by the Book of Mormon scholars themselves—appear indeed! As if to support this thought, the same author wrote: "Yet nowhere does the Book of Mormon identify any other Mulekite city as such." (Michael M. Hobby, The Mulekite Connection, Zarahemla Foundation Press, Salt Lake City, 1992, p 13).

It is interesting that Theorists like to make light of the scriptural record and of Mormon’s descriptions. Hobby states that a prophet and writer of information in the scriptural record is inaccurate, or unaware, or deceived by appearances. When one understands the writing of the record, the abridgement and the interpretation, and the involvement of the Spirit, one recognizes both the accuracy of the writing and the accuracy of Joseph Smith’s interpretation, which was accepted by the Spirit. There are no errors in the Book of Mormon other than a few grammatical changes that have been made.

Thus, when you look at the two scriptures typically quoted by Book of Mormon scholars to claim the Mulekites landed in the Land Northward and eventually migrated southward until they reached the land of Zarahemla, the oft-cited scriptures actually say nothing of the kind—especially when compared with the statement made in Omni.

Taking a blinded Zedekiah back to Babylon where he was imprisoned for the rest of his life


Actually, the Mulekites left Jerusalem sometime at the end or possibly after the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. In some way, Mulek escaped detection by the Babylonian King Nebekenezer, who captured and killed all the sons of Zedekiah and took the blinded Hebrew king back to the Akkadian-speaking and cultural state of Babylon based in central-southern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq and Syria).

It is quite likely that Mulek, the undisclosed son of Zedekiah was just a babe, or young child, when he was taken out of Jerusalem, since the Hebrew king was only 32 when he was captured and taken to Babylon. Thus Mulek was taken by palace retainers, family, mother, or servants, or a combination of these, as they fled into the wilderness.

1 comment:

  1. Very good series on the landing of the Mulekites! Great work.

    The only thing I would add is that the land in which they resided ever since their arrival is described as a "land" and not a city. So the place they lived for nearly four centuries before the Nephites found them would not have merely been Pachacamac. The current density and distribution of ruins testifies of a greater "land" boundary. That "land" most likely included the Lurin Valley, upward into the canyon, and spread to include the entire area of modern day Lima. Pachacamac is simply the most extensive ruin that was not covered by more modern buildings in the greater Zarahemla area. Continued occupation and construction in Lima has for centuries covered the ruins there, leaving only the tiniest fraction of ancient ruins intact.