"The Mulekite Connection" by Alan C. Minor

[Hemidakota]

Excerpts from Step by Step Through the Book of Mormon by Alan C. Miner.

Contributing authors are noted.

Ancient America Foundation [e-mail]

In Alma 2:1 we first encounter the man named "Amlici." This man was "very cunning" and "wise as to the wisdom of the world," and was said to be "after the order of the man that slew Gideon," which man was named Nehor (Alma 1:7-15). Thus Amlici was after the order of Nehor (and was also of Mulekite decent).

According to Michael Hobby, the vote of the people would barely keep Amlici out of power (Alma 2:7-8). The ensuing conflict over that decision would become a tremendous bloodbath in what would continue to be an on-again, off-again Nephite-Mulekite civil war. The Amlicites eventually combined with a Lamanite force, and the battle became such that the number of the slain "were not numbered because of the greatness of their number" (Alma 3:1) [Michael M. Hobby, The Mulekite Connection, pp. 21-22]

Note* As to the background of this man Amlici and to the reasons behind such a tremendous war, the reader might reflect back in time and ask, Was this Amlicite (Mulekite)--"Lamanite" war similar in ideological differences to the "Lamanite" wars that happened during the reign of king Benjamin (Omni 1:24 and Words of Mormon 1:13-14)? In other words, could the "Lamanites" which king Benjamin fought have been directed by the dissident Mulekites who lived near the local land of Zarahemla? The reader should be aware that the Book of Mormon is a written record of Lehi's covenant family, so all recorded events are reflected only in terms of covenant family members. In other words, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him. And-- whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth--And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people --(Alma 3:10-12).Thus, a dissident Mulekite-led insurrection would possibly be termed "Lamanite." Perhaps Mulekite influence in Nephite history has to be gleaned from "reading between the lines." [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes]

According to the theory of Michael Hobby, the reason such care was taken by Mosiah2 during the transfer of power from kings to the judges was that the liberty of the Nephites--ultimately the church--was at risk if a Mulekite, a descendant of Judah, should ever consolidate the reigns of power. While the brass plates were early on a symbol of kingship power for the Nephites, they ultimately contained verses which might have been a key source for disputation regarding kingship. If the Mulekites studied the brass plates, they would soon discover that the right of rule was originally conferred upon the tribe of Judah (see Genesis 49:8-12). . . . Having this newly found right to kingship coupled with their Jaredite kingship heritage, some of the Mulekites would have sufficient ammunition to foster rebellion. With this background in mind, it is interesting that according to Alma 1:2, and despite the fact that judges were now in control and not kings, there was no mistaking in the Nephite mind that the chief judge reigned. [Michael M. Hobby, The Mulekite Connection, pp. 32-34]

According to John Tvedtnes, the name Mulek comes from the Hebrew root mlk for "king," and it may be that the "king-men" (Alma 51:5) of the Book of Mormon were, in fact, Mulekites. The text informs us that these were people of "high-birth" (Alma 51:8), "who professed the blood of nobility" (Alma 51:21), and who felt that they should rule -- perhaps because of descent from King Zarahemla or King Zedekiah of Judah--- It is interesting that the king-men who survived the war "were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities" (Alma 51:20). If this means that they were settled in specific cities, then they are more likely a tribal group than a political faction. [John A. Tvedtnes, "Book of Mormon Tribal Affiliation and Military Castes," in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, F.A.R.M.S., p. 299]

According to Joseph Allen, a part of the Mulekite population of Zarahemla might have somewhat resented Mosiah coming in and assuming kingship. In the book, Forest of Kings it talks about what was happening in the Peten (Guatemala) area during this time period. There is a chapter of this book entitled "The Rise of the Kingmen", which correlates provocatively with the ideas and dates found in this section of the Book of Mormon. There is also a correlation with the building of fortified cities at this time.

The theme of Alma 51 concerns the king-men, who sought to change the Nephite form of government (Alma 51, 60, 62). This would be natural for the people of Zarahemla, who were Mulekites who came to the New World in company with the last surviving son of king Zedekiah of Judah, named Mulek. The Hebrew word melek means "king" and the title "king-men" and "Mulekite" may be identical. In any event, the Book of Mormon record makes it clear that it was because of their "high birth" that they felt they should possess political power (alma 51:8). The king-men were evidently the same people who had supported Amalickiah in his bid to become king. From Alma 46:4, we learn that "they were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were seeking for power."

It is intriguing that these facts give rise to the possibility that not only the king-men, but the secret combination among the Nephites had its origin in Jerusalem. In ancient Israel, the lower judges were the elders [or "princes"]. Thus the predecessors to the king-men were probably the "princes" in Jerusalem who convinced king Zedekiah to ignore the words of the prophets, thus contributing to the destruction of the kingdom, just as the Gadianton band nearly led to the destruction of the Nephite nation (Helaman 2:13; 6:38-40; 3 Nephi 9:9). [John A. Tvedtnes, "The Elders at Jerusalem in the Days of Lehi," in The Most Correct Book, pp. 74-75]

Archaeological Historic Evidence

If Tvedtnes is correct in this observation, then we might be able to add a chapter to Book of Mormon history with archaeological evidence for the origin of the city of Jerusalem located in northern highland Nephi/Guatemla. It was not the Nephites who built the city of Jerusalem. It was the apostate Amlekites and the people of Amulon (Alma 21: 1-2). The implication is that the great city was built, not for the memory of Nephite religious heritage from the Jerusalem homeland, but rather as the seat of power of king-men that Jerusalem represented from the days of king Zedekiah. The fact that the city/land of Jerusalem joined the borders of the land Mormon on the north, which in turn joined the borders of the city/land Nephi, has given us the opportunity to locate the city/land of Jerusalem in the valley of Lake Atitlan where underwater archaeology is excavating a buried Late Preclassic city off the south shore of Lake Atitlan, that qualifies for the city of Jerusalem. [V. Garth Norman, Personal Notes; see prior AAF research notes on excavation of the ruins of Chukumuk beneath the waters of Lake Atitlan.]