Book of Mormon Reading Group: 02 Oct - 08 Oct 2023 (2 Nephi 29 - Omni 1)

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

But presumably the name Mulek is mentioned somewhere else?

Indeed. Mulek is explicitly named in Mosiah 25:2 and Helaman 6:10. Alma 51-53 also mention a city called Mulek, which we may assume was named either for the original Mulek or for someone named for him.

FTR, "Mulek" appears to be derived from "melek", meaning "king" (e.g. "Mechizedek" = "melek" (king) + "zadok" (righteousness) = "king of righteousness"). Mulek would thus be an appropriate title, or name, for the son of king Zedekiah. Here is a short but interesting BYU paper on the name Mulek.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Vort

[Vort]

31 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Another thought - if Mulek was the son of Zedekiah, then his descendents - including Zarahemla - would have been of the royal house of David. Its a little surprising perhaps that they didn't claim the kingship over Mosiah - though maybe having lost their cultural heritage (through having no records) they felt less qualified to lead.

The Book of Mormon indicates that the people of Mulek had lost their language and much of their societal heritage. The text of the Book of Mormon seems rather broadly and (dare I say it) thoughtlessly attribute the obvious leadership to the Nephites, so that even though the Nephites were the numerical minority, the Nephite king was the obvious choice for leading the combined people. We may at least assume that this was the common Nephite viewpoint.

[zil2]

47 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This sounds like a different approach from today's model, and more similar to the approach that applied in ancient Israel. In ancient Israel, and seemingly in the time and society of Jarom, it was not uncommon to have more than one source of revelation. Today, we very firmly adhere to the principle that there is only one source of revelation for the whole church across the world.

The way the text reads, it's easy to assume they're talking about "president of the Church"-level revelation, but really, he doesn't say.  We sustain the president of the Church, his counselors, and the members of the quorum of the 12 Apostles as (15) prophets, seers, and revelators.  Further, we believe that anyone sufficiently worth can receive revelation, just not outside their stewardship.  But it does indeed seem like both the Nephites and ancient Israel used the title of "prophet" in a more relaxed manner than we do today.

[Jamie123]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Indeed. Mulek is explicitly named in Mosiah 25:2 and Helaman 6:10. Alma 51-53 also mention a city called Mulek, which we may assume was named either for the original Mulek or for someone named for him.

FTR, "Mulek" appears to be derived from "melek", meaning "prince" (e.g. "Mechizedek" = "melek" (prince) + "zadok" (righteousness) = "Prince of righteousness"). Mulek would thus be an appropriate title, or name, for the son of Zedekiah. Here is a short but interesting BYU paper on the name Mulek.

Interesting article - also the Book of Mormon does mention how their language had changed and how they needed to be taught to speak Hebrew again. Maybe this changing mutated "MakliYahu" into "Mulek" (in much the same way the English "bishop" is a mutation of the Greek "episkopos").

[zil2]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

The Book of Mormon indicates that the people of Mulek had lost their language and much of their societal heritage. The text of the Book of Mormon seems rather broadly and (dare I say it) thoughtlessly attribute the obvious leadership to the Nephites, so that even though the Nephites were the numerical minority, the Nephite king was the obvious choice for leading the combined people. We may at least assume that this was the common Nephite viewpoint.

And it's entirely possible, IMO, that Mosiah I was that impressive a man.  (Heaven knows what all went on there - gallons of history in a drop in only a few verses - but it sure seems like Mosiah I was not your average fellow.)

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

And it's entirely possible, IMO, that Mosiah I was that impressive a man.  (Heaven knows what all went on there - gallons of history in a drop in only a few verses - but it sure seems like Mosiah I was not your average fellow.)

Indeed. I'm sure the first Mosiah was a tremendous man. My "thoughtlessly" wording wasn't meant to suggest literally no thought involved, but that they had strong (and very possibly justified) biases that seem to have made the outcome almost predetermined.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Vort

[Vort]

.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Vort
Carthago delenda est!

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Another thought - if Mulek was the son of Zedekiah, then his descendents - including Zarahemla - would have been of the royal house of David. Its a little surprising perhaps that they didn't claim the kingship over Mosiah - though maybe having lost their cultural heritage (through having no records) they felt less qualified to lead.

Probably so.  I believe that it would have been about civilization and education (both secular and religious).

The Mulekites no longer had any written records, therefore, no written language.  Without writing and education, language evolves a WHOLE lot faster than in an educated society.

Part of the Law of Moses was to teach all the children how to read & write the words of the Torah, and hopefully all the scriptures as well as secular writings.

The Mulekites were probably less civilized and were also nearly illiterate.  Given the timeframe, I'd estimate that maybe a few of the elder generation still remembered some of the older language and writings.  But the rising generation were simply ignorant hunter-gatherers.

Mosiah (and presumably a group who traveled with him) represented a society who had preserved their writings and their religion.  They had something to point to and say "Here are the words of God.  This is the way we're supposed to live."  The older Mulekites had a slight recollection of it and told their people to look to this new "tribe" for guidance on how to live the Law of Moses.

Just a guess based on societal patterns and what little is actually written about the Mulekites.

The question I have not been able to answer is about Coriantumr.  He spent some time with the Mulekites.  And there was a stone that gave an account of his people.  So, did he stay long enough to learn the Mulekite language?  Or did he simply write in his own language?  Basically which language did Mosiah interpret from the stone?

It may be completely useless data.  But I am curious.

Did Mosiah use the Jaredite interpreters?  Or did he have his own?  Just curious.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Carborendum