Zedekiah and Mulek


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

I started the BoM recently, and Nephi mentions King Zedekiah, so I thought I would try to learn a little more about Zedekiah -- especially knowing that one of his sons crosses to the Americas after Lehi. The thing that struck me about Zedekiah is that he was most definitely not an old man. The Bible says that his reign started when he was 21 and lasted only 11 years (so about 32). He had several sons (I could not see anything that said how many or gave an age range). It occurred to me that the oldest of Zedekiah's children could maybe be about 18 (if Zedekiah was 14 when he was born).

I guess I have always envisioned the Mulekites being led out of Jerusalem by Mulek -- but maybe that is not the case. Mulek would have been young -- at most 18 and that assumes Zedekiah was having children quite early. Nephi was also young, so maybe age doesn't matter. Details are lacking, but it would be easy to see Mulek as being a child, or, maybe even in an act reminiscent of Moses, an infant squirreled away and sent into hiding before Nebuchadnezzar could kill all of Zedekiah's sons.

Who knows, the scriptural record gives no details. It was just interesting to recognize that Mulek could not have been very old, and maybe was not even the leader of the expedition, and maybe the Mulekites' journey through the wilderness and across the ocean was nothing like the Lehites' journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was Nibley who suggested that the “Mulekites” encountered by Mosiah may have actually made up their origin story as a political ploy.  I’m not sure I agree—IIRC “mulek” ties back to some Hebrew cognate implying “son of the king”, or somesuch—but it’s interesting to see how different readers approach the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it was Nibley who suggested that the “Mulekites” encountered by Mosiah may have actually made up their origin story as a political ploy.  I’m not sure I agree—IIRC “mulek” ties back to some Hebrew cognate implying “son of the king”, or somesuch—but it’s interesting to see how different readers approach the issue.

I thought it was Orson Scott Card who suggested that. Don't bet the ranch on my recollection, though. I have no problem in principle with the idea, but I don't believe it.

Mulek was surely a young boy when he was taken from Jerusalem, whether he was the Judean dauphin (unlikely) or another son, perhaps even the youngest. I have always imagined his mother and some co-conspirators spiriting him away at night and/or in the confusion of the arrest of Zedekiah. Surely they had some idea what was going to happen and were prepared to some degree for it. Why they chose to flee by sea, how they got to open ocean, whether they were blown across to the New World or were led by the Spirit, or perhaps concocted a harebrained scheme based on ancient legends of another land, is all part of the big question of Mulek's history. It's all romantic speculation, of course, but it could make a great film.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's all romantic speculation, of course, but it could make a great film.

Or, speaking of brother Card, a book...maybe set on a distant planet...with orbiting computers that speak into people's minds...and choose a few to take to another planet. (FTR, my wife dislikes his Harmony series because it feels to her to be too close to plagiarizing the Book of Mormon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Why they chose to flee by sea, how they got to open ocean, whether they were blown across to the New World or were led by the Spirit, or perhaps concocted a harebrained scheme based on ancient legends of another land, is all part of the big question of Mulek's history. It's all romantic speculation, of course, but it could make a great film.

The only thing we have in scripture pertaining to Mulek's travel's is this statement, "for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south." This scripture at least highlights that as with Lehi, Mulek was also spared and brought forth by the Lord to the land north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The only thing we have in scripture pertaining to Mulek's travel's is this statement, "for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south." This scripture at least highlights that as with Lehi, Mulek was also spared and brought forth by the Lord to the land north.

Right you are. But it's not clear to me that the verse quoted means that the Mulekites were led by a prophet or by the gift of prophecy from Jerusalem to the New World, whatever "the land north" means. The fact that they appear to have fallen so relatively quickly into apostasy might argue that they did not long preserve their prophecies or beliefs, or even the knowledge of the Lord himself, among them.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Right you are. But it's not clear to me that the verse quoted means that the Mulekites were led by a prophet or by the gift of prophecy from Jerusalem to the New World, whatever "the land north" means. The fact that they appear to have fallen so relatively quickly into apostasy might argue that they did not long preserve their prophecies or beliefs, or even the knowledge of the Lord himself, among them.

Agreed. I think the Mulekites give evidence to two statements from the Lord to Lehi and Nephi:

1) Without the plates the Nephites would have fallen just as easily as the Mulekites.

2) That at that time anyone, possibly even now, who are led to this land were lead by the Lord, whether that be as guided by a prophet and the spirit of revelation and prophecy, or simply the Lord led them like Christopher Columbus (without knowing he was being guided) to find and discover a new land.

*The land north is easily interpreted as Canada (no offense Canadians), just because we can see how quickly they have fallen in relation to the Unites States -- Buahahaha -- sarcasm fully intended.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Right you are. But it's not clear to me that the verse quoted means that the Mulekites were led by a prophet or by the gift of prophecy from Jerusalem to the New World, whatever "the land north" means. The fact that they appear to have fallen so relatively quickly into apostasy might argue that they did not long preserve their prophecies or beliefs, or even the knowledge of the Lord himself, among them.

My understanding was that the the Mulekites were brought over without scriptures while the Lehites were brought WITH scriptures to show the differences between the people and emphasize the importance of scriptures.

The ancient Israelites had many prophets who wrought mighty miracles right before the eyes of the Israelites.  While they technically did have scriptures (The Torah) they did not study them on a daily basis.  Without that, from Joshua onward they were so easily led into apostasy -- again and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anddenex said:

Agreed. I think the Mulekites give evidence to two statements from the Lord to Lehi and Nephi:

1) Without the plates the Nephites would have fallen just as easily as the Mulekites.

2) That at that time anyone, possibly even now, who are led to this land were lead by the Lord, whether that be as guided by a prophet and the spirit of revelation and prophecy, or simply the Lord like Christopher Columbus (without knowing he was being guided) to find and discover a new land.

*The land north is easily interpreted as Canada (no offense Canadians), just because we can see how quickly they have fallen in relation to the Unites States -- Buahahaha -- sarcasm fully intended.

DANGIT!! one second earlier.  Now I'm going to be called a copycat again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

I thought it was Orson Scott Card who suggested that. Don't bet the ranch on my recollection, though. I have no problem in principle with the idea, but I don't believe it.

Mulek was surely a young boy when he was taken from Jerusalem, whether he was the Judean dauphin (unlikely) or another son, perhaps even the youngest. I have always imagined his mother and some co-conspirators spiriting him away at night and/or in the confusion of the arrest of Zedekiah. Surely they had some idea what was going to happen and were prepared to some degree for it. Why they chose to flee by sea, how they got to open ocean, whether they were blown across to the New World or were led by the Spirit, or perhaps concocted a harebrained scheme based on ancient legends of another land, is all part of the big question of Mulek's history. It's all romantic speculation, of course, but it could make a great film.

Nibley suggested that Mulek was a wee baby and that Jeremiah led their group out of Jerusalem to Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Agreed. I think the Mulekites give evidence to two statements from the Lord to Lehi and Nephi:

1) Without the plates the Nephites would have fallen just as easily as the Mulekites.

 

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My understanding was that the the Mulekites were brought over without scriptures while the Lehites were brought WITH scriptures to show the differences between the people and emphasize the importance of scriptures.

Given the ease with which the Lord can, and sometimes has, replaced missing scriptures, it seems odd to attribute the falling away of a group of people simply and solely to the absence of a particular item. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't at all reduce the oddity of it. 

Is this the verse you are referring to, or are you referring to something else?

17  And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous.  Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

(Book of Mormon | Omni 1:17)

To me, this sounds more like a description of a fallen people rather than an analysis of how they became fallen. And apart from the comment about their language becoming corrupted, this description applies perfectly well to the Nephites, who had the scriptures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Given the ease with which the Lord can, and sometimes has, replaced missing scriptures, it seems odd to attribute the falling away of a group of people simply and solely to the absence of a particular item. 

Well, I don't remember using the terms "simply and solely" to not having records. I said that this gives evidence to the fact of not having records that is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon, as one of the specifications mentions they had no records. Even Nephi says the following, "Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law. And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass."

So, I prefer to believe the comparison taught within scriptures (Book of Mormon).

Would you have an example where the Lord "replaced" the Law of Moses? Why was it so important for Nephi to have this record such that their lives were on the line if the Lord could have "replaced" the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a well established fact that the reasoning of going back to get the Brass plates was to not only preserve their language but to preserve their knowledge of God and the creation and the plan of salvation, of the which without, they would have become just like the Mulekites. The scriptures were what binded the people together, generation after generation, it was the critical piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2019 at 12:01 PM, MrShorty said:

Who knows, the scriptural record gives no details. It was just interesting to recognize that Mulek could not have been very old, and maybe was not even the leader of the expedition, and maybe the Mulekites' journey through the wilderness and across the ocean was nothing like the Lehites' journey.

There are some interesting things to be gleaned from history and scriptures.  Of particular note are the ancient Phoenicians that were noted for their great ships and sea adventures.  During the reign of king David - who was a good friend of Hiram (the king of Phoenicia) - David was given an armada of 300 ships.  These ships would go on a two year trip and bring back peacocks.   Since Peacocks are natives of India – this means David’s ships were trading with India – which is a two year trip.

But when the later Europeans were able to navigate around the tip of Africa to India – it was only 40 years when a storm drove a ship off course that ended up in the Americas.  My personal theory concerning the Mulekites is that the knowledge of ocean travel remained in Israel down to the time of King Zedekiah – at which time a small group of those wishing to preserve the blood line of the kings of Israel took the babe and left to where they knew the Babylonians could not find nor follow them – to a secret place.  It is interesting to me that the name of the river by their city is named Sidon which was the capitol of Phoenicia – which would indicate that some Phoenicians with knowledge of the sea and strong connections to Israel joined them.

It is also my theory that there were other peoples in the Americas other than referenced in the Book of Mormon.  For example there are indications that Egypt and China both had settlements in ancient America.  I believe it is possible that there are blood lines (DNA) in the Americas that are not of Israel

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share