Mosiah 28:8-9 and Alma 17:6

[askandanswer]

8 And it came to pass that Mosiah granted that they might go and do according to their request.

9 And they ^atook their journey into the wilderness to go up to preach the word among the Lamanites; and I shall give an ^baccount of their proceedings hereafter.

 

6 Now these were their journeyings: Having ^ataken leave of their father, Mosiah, in the ^bfirst year of the judges; having ^crefused the kingdom which their father was desirous to confer upon them, and also this was the minds of the people;

 

My reading of this three verses suggests that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission before the reign of the judges commenced. Would it be more correct to say that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission during the last year of the reign of the kings rather than in the first year of the reign of the judges?

Edited November 1, 2023 by askandanswer

[CV75]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

28 And it came to pass that Mosiah granted that they might go and do according to their request.

29 And they ^atook their journey into the wilderness to go up to preach the word among the Lamanites; and I shall give an ^baccount of their proceedings hereafter.

 

6 Now these were their journeyings: Having ^ataken leave of their father, Mosiah, in the ^bfirst year of the judges; having ^crefused the kingdom which their father was desirous to confer upon them, and also this was the minds of the people;

 

My reading of this three verses suggests that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission before the reign of the judges commenced. Would it be more correct to say that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission during the last year of the reign of the kings rather than in the first year of the reign of the judges?

It stands to reason there was in "interregnum" including a carryover of the king's edicts at the ending of his reign and the commencement of the reign of the judges.

They got permission from their father, the king. They took their journey. It does not say when they left, it could have been before, during or after the interregnum, and the first year of the judges could have also been the same year as the last year of the king.

PS your first scripture quote is from Mosiah 28: 8-9.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

6 Now these were their journeyings: Having ^ataken leave of their father, Mosiah, in the ^bfirst year of the judges; having ^crefused the kingdom which their father was desirous to confer upon them, and also this was the minds of the people;

[...]

My reading of this three verses suggests that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission before the reign of the judges commenced. Would it be more correct to say that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission during the last year of the reign of the kings rather than in the first year of the reign of the judges?

No. The first year of the judges means the year that the judges started ruling. (Or possibly the 365 days starting from the day the judges were installed, but that seems less likely. In either case, the wording precludes it being before the ruling of the judges.) Mosiah remained the titular king and probably helped immensely in the transition, but the judges were in place and issuing rulings when Mosiah's son's left for Lamanite lands.

[askandanswer]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

PS your first scripture quote is from Mosiah 28: 8-9.

Thanks @CV75for your correction, I've amended the thread tag to correct this.

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

No. The first year of the judges means the year that the judges started ruling. (Or possibly the 365 days starting from the day the judges were installed, but that seems less likely. In either case, the wording precludes it being before the ruling of the judges.) Mosiah remained the titular king and probably helped immensely in the transition, but the judges were in place and issuing rulings when Mosiah's son's left for Lamanite lands.

Mosiah 29 adds some further light. 

3 Now Aaron had gone up to the land of Nephi, therefore the king could not confer the kingdom upon him; ^aneither would Aaron take upon him the kingdom; neither were any of the ^bsons of Mosiah ^cwilling to take upon them the kingdom.

To me, this verse indicates that Aaron (and we know from Alma 17 that the brothers travelled together to the land of the Nephites, so Aaron probably wasn't alone) had already started his journey to the Lamanite lands before King Mosiah announced his proposal for shift from a monarchy. The idea of an interregnum that @CV75refers to probably took place after the judges started work while Mosiah was still alive. 

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

They got permission from their father, the king. They took their journey. It does not say when they left, it could have been before, during or after the interregnum, and the first year of the judges could have also been the same year as the last year of the king.

9 And they ^atook their journey into the wilderness to go up to preach the word among the Lamanites; and I shall give an ^baccount of their proceedings hereafter.

I think the most reasonable conclusion from this verse is that they started their journey in verse 9 of chapter 28. Quite possibly, and maybe even likely, everything referred to after verse 9 - the translation of the plates, the gathering of the people for Mosiah's address, the election of new judges, and the installing of the new judges into their new jobs. all of which may have been quite time consuming, -  took place after they had already left. 

 

 

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think the most reasonable conclusion from this verse is that they started their journey in verse 9 of chapter 28. Quite possibly, and maybe even likely, everything referred to after verse 9 - the translation of the plates, the gathering of the people for Mosiah's address, the election of new judges, and the installing of the new judges into their new jobs. all of which may have been quite time consuming, -  took place after they had already left. 

But it could still have happened in the same year.  I doubt they had as much red tape as we do...

[CV75]

18 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Mosiah 29 adds some further light. 

3 Now Aaron had gone up to the land of Nephi, therefore the king could not confer the kingdom upon him; ^aneither would Aaron take upon him the kingdom; neither were any of the ^bsons of Mosiah ^cwilling to take upon them the kingdom.

To me, this verse indicates that Aaron (and we know from Alma 17 that the brothers travelled together to the land of the Nephites, so Aaron probably wasn't alone) had already started his journey to the Lamanite lands before King Mosiah announced his proposal for shift from a monarchy. The idea of an interregnum that @CV75refers to probably took place after the judges started work while Mosiah was still alive. 

9 And they ^atook their journey into the wilderness to go up to preach the word among the Lamanites; and I shall give an ^baccount of their proceedings hereafter.

I think the most reasonable conclusion from this verse is that they started their journey in verse 9 of chapter 28. Quite possibly, and maybe even likely, everything referred to after verse 9 - the translation of the plates, the gathering of the people for Mosiah's address, the election of new judges, and the installing of the new judges into their new jobs. all of which may have been quite time consuming, -  took place after they had already left. 

I like to take note of where the phrase "And it came to pass..." is used and how it plays with our notions of chronological sequence. For example, Helaman chapter 3: Comparing verses 19 (48th year), 21 (indeterminate birth years of Nephi and Lehi) and 37 (53rd year) indicates (in this instance of its use) that it has nothing to do with the order of events -- otherwise, Nephi would have been born in the 48th year at the latest, making him at most only 5 years old when he began to EDIT: reign, and 14 years old when he began to preach with Lehi (from 4:18 and 5:1), since he was born the 48th year, began to reign in the 53rd year (age 5), and gave up the judgement seat in the 62nd year (age 14)!!!

Mosiah 29, verses 41, 42 and 46 use it in connection with Alma's appointment, the commencement of the reign of the judges (v 44), Mosiah's death, and the end of the reign of the kings (v 47), allowing the period of government transition of about a year according to the chapter headings.

Edited November 2, 2023 by CV75

[Vort]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Mosiah 29 adds some further light. 

3 Now Aaron had gone up to the land of Nephi, therefore the king could not confer the kingdom upon him; ^aneither would Aaron take upon him the kingdom; neither were any of the ^bsons of Mosiah ^cwilling to take upon them the kingdom.

To me, this verse indicates that Aaron (and we know from Alma 17 that the brothers travelled together to the land of the Nephites, so Aaron probably wasn't alone) had already started his journey to the Lamanite lands before King Mosiah announced his proposal for shift from a monarchy. The idea of an interregnum that @CV75refers to probably took place after the judges started work while Mosiah was still alive. 

9 And they ^atook their journey into the wilderness to go up to preach the word among the Lamanites; and I shall give an ^baccount of their proceedings hereafter.

I think the most reasonable conclusion from this verse is that they started their journey in verse 9 of chapter 28. Quite possibly, and maybe even likely, everything referred to after verse 9 - the translation of the plates, the gathering of the people for Mosiah's address, the election of new judges, and the installing of the new judges into their new jobs. all of which may have been quite time consuming, -  took place after they had already left.

Obvious and brilliant. I had always assumed, without thinking too deeply about it, that Aaron's having "gone up to the  land of Nephi" was an immediate precursor to the sons' famous work there. But this is not at all implicit, and your reading is far more natural. I change my answer. You must be right. Ammon & Co. left before king Mosiah made his proposition to the people about having judges but after the sons' refusal to take the kingship. The whole matter, from king Mosiah's proposition to the adoption of system of judges, all took place within one Nephite year, probably within the same Nephite year as counted by their contemporary calendar. Thanks! This is really a good insight, one I'm a bit embarrassed to have missed but that I'm happy to learn.

This actually makes a lot more sense when you consider that the Lamanite king (vassal king) Lamoni must have known who Ammon was and must have been excited at the prospect of having the powerful Nephite king Mosiah's son—perhaps the very crown prince—as his servant. It would have taken a period of time, months or perhaps years, for the news of the Nephites' political reforms to reach Lamanite ears. Lamoni doubtless thought of Ammon as a current Nephite prince and potentially a valuable ally against other Lamanite vassal kings and perhaps to some extent even his own father, all of whom he may well have considered to be his enemies.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Obvious and brilliant. I had always assumed, without thinking too deeply about it, that Aaron's having "gone up to the  land of Nephi" was an immediate precursor to the sons' famous work there. But this is not at all implicit, and your reading is far more natural. I change my answer. You must be right. Ammon & Co. left before king Mosiah made his proposition to the people about having judges but after the sons' refusal to take the kingship. The whole matter, from king Mosiah's proposition to the adoption of system of judges, all took place within one Nephite year, probably within the same Nephite year as counted by their contemporary calendar. Thanks! This is really a good insight, one I'm a bit embarrassed to have missed but that I'm happy to learn.

This actually makes a lot more sense when you consider that the Lamanite king (vassal king) Lamoni must have known who Ammon was and must have been excited at the prospect of having the powerful Nephite king Mosiah's son—perhaps the very crown prince—as his servant. It would have taken a period of time, months or perhaps years, for the news of the Nephites' political reforms to reach Lamanite ears. Lamoni doubtless thought of Ammon as a current Nephite prince and potentially a valuable ally against other Lamanite vassal kings and perhaps to some extent even his own father, all of whom he may well have considered to be his enemies.

...which renders neither phrasing  more correct than the other... :D!

[Carborendum]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:30 AM, askandanswer said:

8 And it came to pass that Mosiah granted that they might go and do according to their request.

9 And they ^atook their journey into the wilderness to go up to preach the word among the Lamanites; and I shall give an ^baccount of their proceedings hereafter.

 

6 Now these were their journeyings: Having ^ataken leave of their father, Mosiah, in the ^bfirst year of the judges; having ^crefused the kingdom which their father was desirous to confer upon them, and also this was the minds of the people;

 

My reading of this three verses suggests that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission before the reign of the judges commenced. Would it be more correct to say that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission during the last year of the reign of the kings rather than in the first year of the reign of the judges?

I would say:

• Verse 6 explicitly says it was the "first year of the judges".
• Alma 1:1 explicitly states that the first year was also the year Mosiah died.
• Mosiah 29:3 & Alma 17:6 states that Aaron (the eldest son) was already in the Land of Nephi on his mission at the time that succession should have taken place.  And because Aaron would not take the kingdom, Mosiah proposed the system of judges.
• Therefore, it all happened within the same year.  This could mean the same calendar year, or it could mean the same 365 day period.