Mosiah 7

MDC Contents			Mosiah 7:1 1 And now, it came to pass that after king Mosiah had had continual peace for the space of three years, he was desirous to know concerning the people who went up to dwell in the land of Lehi-Nephi, or in the city of Lehi-Nephi; for his people had heard nothing from them from the time they left the land of Zarahemla; therefore, they wearied him with their teasings. Textual: The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon has a chapter break in this location. The story of Benjamin has ended, and Mormon moves to a new topic. The next major event Mormon wants to include in his recounting of the spiritual history of his people is that of the people who left Zarahemla for the Land of Nephi, and eventually returned. This story is the pivotal incident around which several significant events revolve, of which a major religious conversion of the Lamanites and the emergence of Alma the Elder as a spiritual leader are the two most important. We received our first notice of this event in Omni 1:27-30: Omni 1:27 27 And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number who went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi; for there was a large number who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance. Omni 1:28 28 Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. And their leader being a strong and mighty man, and a stiffnecked man, wherefore he caused a contention among them; and they were all slain, save fifty, in the wilderness, and they returned again to the land of Zarahemla. Omni 1:29 29 And it came to pass that they also took others to a considerable number, and took their journey again into the wilderness. Omni 1:30 30 And I, Amaleki, had a brother, who also went with them; and I have not since known concerning them. The reference in Mosiah is to the second of the two expeditions Omni mentions. We have a little more information about the first expedition in Mosiah 9:1-2. Those verses begin Zeniff’s own account, and he treats that first expedition only briefly. Omni gives us the number of fifty as those who were not slain, a number not specified in Zeniff’s account. This second expedition was also a considerable number, apparently enough for a small village, according to the account of Zeniff. The basic chronology of the event requires that they leave during the reign of Benjamin, based on when Omni describes the departure. Therefore, during the reign of Mosiah the people managed to stay together. At some time after that, however, the desire for the ancestral land, and no doubt remembrances of a better life there, caused many to leave. At this point, however, Mormon is simply editing inside a general chronological framework. This we begin this story three years after the coronation, at some point during the year Benjamin dies, and most likely after that great man passed away. Geography: While there is no specific geographic information in this passage there is nevertheless an important inference, which is that the land of Nephi is not within easy communication lines from Zarahemla. Either through terrain or distance, there is no easy communication between Zarahemla and those o their people who left for the Land of Nephi. Historical: Deciphering the Chronology from Mosiah I to the Zeniffite/Nephite Reunion As noted in the discussion of Omni, we have a difficult span of years between dates. We have a fixed dated of 320 years after the departure from Jerusalem (approximately 266 BC) for the destruction of the "more wicked part of the Nephites (Omni 1:5), and no other firm date until the coronation of Mosiah 476 years after the departure from Jerusalem (approximately 110 BC, see Mosiah 6:4). Although we are left without any clear dates in between, there are some approximations that can be calculated based on other data in the text. The next important date following the coronation of Mosiah is 509 years after Jerusalem, and 33 years after the coronation (Mosiah 29:46). In this year three important things occur: a) King Mosiah dies (Mosiah 29:46), Alma the Elder dies (Mosiah 29:45), and the reign of the judges begins (Mosiah 29:44). The reign of the judges will change some of the dating practices in the Book of Mormon. The other two pieces of information can help with dating. Along with the date, we understand that Mosiah is 63 years old, and Alma the Elder is 82 years old. This has Mosiah born in 140 BC, and Alma 159 BC. We can place the departure of Ammon to find the missing Zeniffites at 107 BC. It is mentioned specifically as three years after the coronation. Since this story kicks off the eventual reuniting of the people of Limhi and Alma with those of Zarahemla, we know that those events take place after 107 BC. Of course we cannot tell how much time passed from the time Ammon left to the time Limhi and Alma’s people arrived, but those events appear to occur in fairly rapid order, so the reuniting probably took place no later than 106-5 BC (Alma would be around 53 years old at the time of the reuniting). Our next chronological problem is attempting to date Zeniff’s departure from Zarahemla. There are no particularly firm dates, but there are some indications that we can use. Zeniff unfortunately dates events from the foundation of his "dynasty" in the land of Lehi-Nephi. We have numbers of years, we simply cannot easily correlate them to the "years from Jerusalem" style of dating. We find Zeniff specifically noting an event 12 years after beginning his reign (Mosiah 9:11) and another in the 13th year (Mosiah 9:14). The last date he gives is 22 years after beginning his reign when king Laman of the Lamanites dies (Mosiah 10:3). It appears that the death of king Laman triggered unrest between the Lamanites and the Zeniffites, and a war ensued. The Zeniffites were victorious in that war, and some time after that, Zeniff dies. We do not know how many years, if any, passed between the defeat of the Lamanites and the death of Zeniff. We know that after the death of Noah, Limhi has peace for two years (Mosiah 19:29), and that the death of Noah occurs just previous to that, along with the martyrdom of Abinidi. The martyrdom took place 2 years after Abinidi had first come among the people (Mosiah 12:1). Prior to Abinidi’s first visit, the record tells us that Noah had gone on a building spree. That had to have taken some time, but we have no information as to how long the interval was between the death of Zeniff and the arrival of Abinidi (his first mission). The first measuring stick we have is an absolute minimum number of years from the time Zeniff left to the time that his descendants returned. Adding up the stated numbers of years, we have 22 years mentioned for Zeniff, 2 years between Abinidi’s visits, and 2 years of peace under Limhi. Therefore, the Zeniffites were in the land of Lehi-Nephi for no less than 26 years. While that is a good starting point, the actual number of years must have been larger. Our "fuzzy" time periods are between the Zeniffite victory and the first arrival of Abinidi, and the end of the peace for Limhi’s people, the end of which comes very soon before the arrival of Ammon. To fill in these times we must provide guesses. It would appear that while some time was required for the final subjugation of Limhi’s people by the Lamanites after the two years of peace that are mentioned, it would seem than one year would be ample. Perhaps those events took place in less than a full year. Given the way the text moves, it would seem unlikely were there more than a year of subjugation before Ammon arrives. This gives us now 27 years of time in Lehi-Nephi. The next place where we must look at time is between the Zeniffite victory and Abinidi’s first visit. We have two major events in that time period. The first is the death of Zeniff/anointing of Noah. While this may have occurred some time after the Zeniffite victory, the text appears to move quickly to that event. It may have occurred in the same year, with only months separating the two. Indeed, the stress of the battle may have been the factor that weakened Zeniff sufficiently to bring him to his death bed (he notes that he is "in my old age" in Mosiah 10:10). For this reason, there is no compelling reason to add time here. The next problematic area is the time period between Noah’s anointing as king and the first visit of Abinidi. In the text we are given no time period, but are told that Noah went on a building spree (Mosiah 11:8-13). The building of so many projects with manual labor had to have taken time, and all of these things must precede Abinidi’s second visit, as things deteriorated rapidly from there. We might be able to allow for five years, but ten seems to be a better guess, given the numbers of buildings, the materials, and the spread of the locations (he built many buildings in Shilom – Mosiah 11:13). This gives us 37 years of separation. Plugging these dates into the mix, we would have the original separation of the Zeniffites from Zarahemla in approximately 143 BC. Since we cannot tell how long a time passed between the arrival of Mosiah’s people in Zarahemla and the desire of Zeniff to return to the land of inheritance, we have little to go on for the dating of the arrival in Zarahemla. However, we would expect that a few years would have passed before nostalgia would have become a factor. Five years might be on the high end. This would give the date of Mosiah’s arrival in Zarahemla as no earlier than 148BC. Zeniff would have died in approximately 123BC. Zeniff was probably one of the Nephites who left the City of Nephi with Mosiah, since he claims a special knowledge of that area, a knowledge that must have come from growing up there (see Mosiah 9:1). As a probable generational contemporary of Mosiah I, his death "in my old age" helps us form some type of guess as to the length of reign of Mosiah I and Benjamin. Zeniff would have died approximately 13 years before the anointing of Mosiah II. If Mosiah I had died in the precise year as Zeniff, Mosiah I would have been king for 27 years, and Benjamin for 13. Amaleki is apparently also one who left the City of Nephi. He notes that he was born "in the days of Mosiah" and has lived to see the anointing of Benjamin (Omni 1:23). Since Amaleki considered himself to be old (Omni 1:25) we would suppose him to be at least 50 when he died., with Mosiah I being older than that, so Amaleki could be "born in the days of Mosiah." Verses 27-30 present something of a chronological problem as they follow the anointing of Benjamin. This would place the death of Mosiah very early in the chronology, within the estimated five years prior to the departure of the Zeniffites. While this is possible, increasing Benjamin’s reign to 35 years, it is also possible that the party departed earlier than Benjamin’s coronation, and that Omni simply enters this information as an aside. That text in Omni has the feel of an appended text, as so it may or may not be in chronological order. One reason for seeing the departure as prior to Benjamin’s reign is trying to fit Amaleki’s life span into the reconstructed time period. If Amaleki is born after Mosiah (he says "born in the days of Mosiah" which would seem to indicate that he was born after Mosiah) and was an old man when Benjamin is crowned, then Mosiah would have been quite old when he escaped from the City of Nephi. Similarly, Amaleki’s brother who left with Zeniff would not only have to be a younger brother, but a significantly younger brother to find it worth the time to return to the land of Lehi-Nephi. While Mosiah I certainly could have been old, and was obviously in his maturity since he was accepted as a king by a foreign people, the probable chronology of Amaleki and his brother would argue for the departure of the Zeniffite expedition prior to Benjamin’s coronation rather than after it, as might be read into Amaleki’s account in Omni. Combined with Omni’s inclusion of his brother’s expedition, but complete silence on Benjamin’s speech and Mosiah’s coronation, we may be reasonably certain that the expedition left prior to the speech/coronation. Mosiah 7:2 2 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted that sixteen of their strong men might go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi, to inquire concerning their brethren. Mosiah mounts a modest expedition to discover what happened to the earlier people. That there are 16 people in the group tells us both that there was some potential danger imagined for the expedition, as well as that this was a search party, not a settlement. It was a group large enough for self-defense but small enough for rapid movement. There is no clear reason for selecting 16 men for the expedition. Had the Zarahemlaites selected 12 men, we would immediately know that there was a symbolism that was attached to the number in addition the pragmatics of size. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that gives us reason for 16 which comes from the Mesoamerican context. Just as the numbers 3,7,12, and 40 have special meaning in our received scriptures from the Old World, there as a Mesoamerican symbolism attached to numbers, particularly numbers involving the number 4. As four fours, 16 becomes a significant number in a Mesoamerican context. The number four in Mesoamerica is symbolic of completion or wholeness. The number four figures prominently in many of the creation accounts, appearing as four world trees, four deities assigned to the four directions, and four ages of creation (the Mexica five age, or 5 "sun" system is probably a later elaboration of the more basic Mesoamerican 4 sun mythology. See Gardner, Brant. "The Aztec `Legend of the Suns': A Multi-Dimensional Approach to the Ethnohistory of Myth." In: Symbol and Meaning Beyond the Closed Community. Ed. Gary Gossen. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York, Albany. 1986, pp. 19-34). As four fours, a group of 16 would have a very satisfying "feel" to a native Mesoamerican. Mosiah 7:3 3 And it came to pass that on the morrow they started to go up, having with them one Ammon, he being a strong and mighty man, and a descendant of Zarahemla; and he was also their leader. Textual: Mormon begins the story with a synopsis. In this particular verse there are two possible ultimate sources for this information, the "official" record, or the specific record of the 16 men who departed. Quickly we will see indications that this record of the 16 is being used, either directly or because it was copied into the "official" record. In any case. the ultimate source of this text is the record of the 16. Literary: There is slight possibility that this verse camouflages a Mesoamerican literary style. In several Mesoamerican languages a single "word" can incorporate pronouns, verbs and direct and indirect objets into the word. This ability of the languages to hold what we would consider short sentences into a word or a couple of words led to a structural parallelism that was build not on twos (repetition of an element so that there are two representations of the element) but rather a set of three where each element of the three was a different adjectival or adverbial description of the main subject. In this verse we have Ammon as the subject, and then three descriptions. Ammon is a "strong and mighty man," "a descendent of Zarahemla". and "he was also their leader." If we assume that Joseph is translating meanings into English, and attempting to make more sense of the English than the original text (which the relative smooth reading of the English text suggests) then we might "untranslate" this verse back to possible original based on a Mesoamerican language model. Moving the terms back into a triple modifier of Ammo, and removing the English required to make better sense of the verse, we would have" ..."[they had with them] Ammon; Strong-and-mighty-man-he-was, Zarahemla-descendant-he-was, leader-he-was." One of the interesting aspects of this hypothetical reconstruction is that it returns Ammon’s leadership of the group to prominence rather than leave it in the nearly afterthought category it gets from the English treatment where the third element is a little too long without some other connective, and therefore the word "also" appears. n the English phrase order, the important item comes first. In he Mesoamerican literary device, the most important item comes last because the triplet moves to the mind to follow and emphasize the sequence. Now, this exercise should not be construed as any type of proof that a Mesoamerican language was involved, only that it is a possibility, and also a caution on similar discoveries of Hebraisms in the text. It is possible that this feature appears accidentally. Nevertheless, since the reconstruction makes more sense of he order than the current English, it is a possibility worth speculation. Mosiah 7:4 4 And now, they knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi; therefore they wandered many days in the wilderness, even forty days did they wander. Geographic: Distances in the Book of Mormon are noted in time. The 40 days given for the distance between Nephi and Zarahemla is based upon the journey of Ammon’s party. However, it appears that this particular length of time includes time searching, and does not depict a specific route, as Alma and his converts make essentially the same journey in reverse in 21 days (Mosiah 18:1-7; 23:1-3; 24:20,25) (See Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Deseret Book, 1985, p. 7). Historical: When Mosiah I and his people left the Land of Nephi it was in haste and apparent threat. While they may have had a general idea of the direction they would travel in, they had no specific destination in mind. Clearly they did not map their route, and probably did not take a direct route to reach Zarahemla. When Ammon and his group departed for the land of Nephi, they did not know the way because it was not originally mapped, and because there were no consistent trade routes returning to the land of Nephi. Since the departure of Mosiah until this time there do not appear to have been any direct attempts at trade. Thus the people of Zarahemla know nothing of the people who left, nor have they relations with the Lamanites in area those people went to. The forty days given here is possibly a symbolic number indicating a long time (40 years in the wilderness for the Exodus or 4x10 for a symbolic number based on the Mesoamerican fascination with the number 4). However, it is equally possible that it is a rounded number for approximately that many days. Certainly Ammon's group had to have something to go on, and without a direct map, they would have relied on the amount of time it took for Mosiah I and his people to travel from Nephi to Zarahemla. This distance would never be the precise distance for Mosiah and his group, but a general number of days would give Ammon an indication of when they might have traveled too far. Mosiah 7:5 5 And when they had wandered forty days they came to a hill, which is north of the land of Shilom, and there they pitched their tents. Anthropological: We remember that pitching tents may be best translated as erecting temporary shelter. Their shelter may have been a lean-to as previously noted for the tents erected by those listening to Benjamin. The fact that they camped on a hill may also have significance. In terms of protection from human enemies, a high ground allows the small party to have a better range of vision and keep a more defensible stance. While we hear little of military preparations, we may yet expect that entering the land of the Lamanites that military caution would be warranted. Mosiah 7:6 6 And Ammon took three of his brethren, and their names were Amaleki, Helem, and Hem, and they went down into the land of Nephi. This is a small scouting party. The attempt is to quickly reconnoiter. Mosiah 7:7 7 And behold, they met the king of the people who were in the land of Nephi, and in the land of Shilom; and they were surrounded by the king's guard, and were taken, and were bound, and were committed to prison. This verse would appear to indicate that this small party had some way of recognizing that they had reached the people they sought, otherwise they would not be so willing to approach a royal excursion which would certainly have been heavily armed. If they did not know where they were going, as indicated in verse 4, then how did they know that they had found the correct people? Mormon chooses not to tell us. There are really only two possibilities. The first is that there was something so completely distinctive about the appearance of the Nephites that they would recognize them on sight. This is not a satisfying assumption, however. One way to recognize the Lamanites from their appearance would be to invoke the "white"/"skin of darkness" contrast. We would presume that if we were searching for a very fair skinned, red-headed, Irishman in the middle of a Japanese village, one might notice a physical difference rather quickly. If Nephite/Lamanite appearance could be as easily distinguished as Caucasian/Asian, then we would expect that Limhi's people would have recognized Ammon and his companions as Nephites just as easily as Ammon would have recognized Limhi as Nephite. That racial recognition most certainly did not happen as Ammon was taken as a dangerous intruder, not an obvious kinsman. To be certain, there is a possibility that such physical differences did exist, but that Ammon was seen as an enemy related to the genetic Nephites who had remained in Nephi rather than one who came from Zarahemla. Even were that the case, however, Ammon would not have known that he had found the remnants of Zeniff’s people rather than those Nephites who did not leave with Mosiah. The crucial point is that whether or not there were any visible racial characteristics, they were unusable as political recognition. By this time in the Book of Mormon, there is no indication that the term Nephite can be exclusively associated with race, and indeed many indications such as the Limhi/Ammon encounter that suggest strongly that there is no association between race and Nephite. The second possibility for recognition by appearance would be cultural. When an Arab wears traditional robes in a meeting in any society were Western dress is the norm shows himself to be different because of the choice of dress. This extends further than the color of shirt and tie but to a completely different style of clothing. In modern Guatemala the elaborate needlework on women’s huipiles (a length of cloth with a hole in the middle to go over the head, tied at the waist with cloth belt) can be used to distinguish the home village of the wearer. Using this analogy it is possible that Ammon would recognize Limhi by a distinctive clothing style, but this would presume that Limhi followed a style from Zarahemla that Ammon would recognize after two generations, and that Ammon would not be wearing clothing distinctive to Zarahemla. The lack of recognition of Ammon by Limhi again argues against this similarity. It is equally unlikely that this meeting was pure luck. As noted before, Ammon would not have approached a well armed contingent in the open (even if a city might have had a "welcome to the city of Nephi" sign, Limhi's traveling entourage would not) if he had not had some understanding that he had found the people for whom he searched. Given the information that Ammon didn't really know where he was going, it would be absolutely amazing if the very first people he happened to meet were the people he hoped to find. A more likely possibility is that they asked for the people of Zeniff when they came to small villages. The smaller villages would not have standing armies and rules of hospitality would require them to assist needy travelers. Just as Ammon approached Limhi with only four instead of all sixteen, it is probable that he would have approached a village with a small number. If they were carrying military style weapons, they would have left those weapons with the others. They were certainly carrying some form of weapon as such would be required to hunt for food. However, there was likely a culturally known difference between a hunting weapon and a war weapon. Since the people of Zeniff were now tributary to the Lamanites, there would be no reason to prevent a small group from visiting them. Social: Though our information allowing us to interpret the rule of Limhi is still in the future, it is worth noting that Limhi is considered both a king and a king over two lands. The first land is the land of Nephi and the second land is Shilom, which lies south and slightly east of Nephi. Both of these lands were part of the original grant from the Lamanite king (Mosiah 9:6) and are retained through Noah to Limhi, in spite of the contentions and wars with the Lamanites. We will examine the implications of this grant later in the story of Zeniff. Mosiah 7:8 8 And it came to pass when they had been in prison two days they were again brought before the king, and their bands were loosed; and they stood before the king, and were permitted, or rather commanded, that they should answer the questions which he should ask them. Textual: This verse presents an interesting textual problem. In the middle of the reporting of events, we have the dual phrases "were permitted, or rather commanded." The second phrase "or rather commanded" is interpretive of the first "were permitted." The connotations of the two phrases are sufficiently different that they make unlikely companions in the original text. They are not literary parallels. That second phrase exists entirely because someone saw the first, and saw the irony as well as the meaning. We have two possibilities for the person who added that phrase, Mormon or Joseph Smith. While an argument might be made for either, it would appear that Mormon is the probable author. This is descriptive text rather than citation, and is precisely the type of text that comes directly from Mormon' digest of the text(s) before him. As one more particularly familiar with the prerogatives of kings, Mormon would be in a better position than Joseph to understand the irony of the officially recorded "permitted." We find this particular word in Limhi's opening statement (see verse 11) and it is probable that Mormon uses "permitted" because that is the word that is officially recorded in the discourse. As has been noted, Mormon tends to cite dialog and create linking descriptive text. Therefore, the written discourse had "permitted" and when Mormon describes the incident, he uses that word, but cannot resist the editorial insertion. As a side note, this entry also suggests that even in his abridgement, Mormon is faithful to his sources. While we believe that he was, it is important to have some confirmation of that fact. In the absence of the original, this type of indication will be our best indicator that Mormon is quite faithful to the texts he is abridging. Mosiah 7:9 9 And he said unto them: Behold, I am Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff, who came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land, which was the land of their fathers, who was made a king by the voice of the people. It is typical for a king to declare himself formally. In this case Limhi's declaration relied upon lineage. It is interesting that the declaration of lineage also required the connection to Zarahemla, for that is probably where their ultimate authority came from. Remember that at this time Limhi does not appear to know that his captives are also from Zarahemla, so his statement to Ammon is not one of recognition of commonality, but rather of declaration of connection to a seat of power. This is a known practice from later Mesoamerican peoples. Those who had moved from one area to another found it necessary to trace their ultimate authority to a remote. but established lineage. The Chakchiquel specifically receive their authority for Nacxit, the ruler in Tollan: "the Lord Nacxit said: "Climb up to these columns of stone, enter into my house. I will give you sovereignty…" (_Annals of the Cakchiquels._ Tr. Adrian Recinos and Delia Goetz. University of Oklahoma Press, 1974, p. 65). Neither the Popol Vuh nor the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan for the Quiche mention sovereignty directly, but both trace their foundational lineages to events in Tollan (_Popol Vuh_. Tr. Dennis Tedlock. Simon and Schuster1985, 171-176; "Title of the Lords of Totonicapan." In: _Annals of the Cakchiquels._ Tr. Adrian Recinos and Delia Goetz. University of Oklahoma Press, 1974, p. 169-171). Mosiah 7:10 10 And now, I desire to know the cause whereby ye were so bold as to come near the walls of the city, when I, myself, was with my guards without the gate? Mosiah 7:11 11 And now, for this cause have I suffered that ye should be preserved, that I might inquire of you, or else I should have caused that my guards should have put you to death. Ye are permitted to speak. Textual: There is a possibility that these are the precise words that were spoken, but it is more likely that this is the approximate text with the accurate meaning. Since these are words pronounced by a king in court, there may have been means of accurately recording the exact text. Even if the text is somewhat editorialized, it would be by the official scribe. We may expect that Mormon is accurately portraying his source here. Mosiah 7:12 12 And now, when Ammon saw that he was permitted to speak, he went forth and bowed himself before the king; and rising again he said: O king, I am very thankful before God this day that I am yet alive, and am permitted to speak; and I will endeavor to speak with boldness; Mosiah 7:13 13 For I am assured that if ye had known me ye would not have suffered that I should have worn these bands. For I am Ammon, and am a descendant of Zarahemla, and have come up out of the land of Zarahemla to inquire concerning our brethren, whom Zeniff brought up out of that land. Anthropological: In the second half of the formal exchange between Limhi and Ammon, Ammon repeats the basic genealogical formula. Limhi had declared a lineage through Zeniff (as founder of the dynasty) and ultimate authority out of Zarahemla. Ammon is no king, and has no kingly authority, but does have a lineage, and that lineage traces through Zarahemla. It is important to note in Ammon’s discourse that he gives two pieces of information. The first is that he is a descendant of Zarahemla. With this statement he places himself in a lineage founded by Zarahemla, just as Limhi had placed himself within a newer lineage founded by Zeniff. This is interesting because we have a lineal Zarahemlaite entrusted with the location of what was surely a people founded by a lineal/cultural Nephite (from the original city of Nephi). This seems to indicate a fairly complete acceptance of the Zarahemlaites in the new covenant in Zarahemla, since a different kin group is sent after the Zeniffites. Had their been any continuing animosity, such a move would never have been considered. The second note is that Ammon specifically mentions that he comes "up out of the land of Zarahemla." Zarahemla is used here in both the sense of a founding person and a geographical location. Ammon is giving a dual identification, first as a lineage, and second as a polity, or a political entity. Mosiah 7:14 14 And now, it came to pass that after Limhi had heard the words of Ammon, he was exceedingly glad, and said: Now, I know of a surety that my brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla are yet alive. And now, I will rejoice; and on the morrow I will cause that my people shall rejoice also. Just as we saw with the oath of Zoram (1 Nephi 4:37) a simple declaration has altered the entire nature of the proceedings. Where they began in chains, they end in celebration. Where the physical presence of the intruders was considered dangerous, a simple declaration makes them kinsmen, and welcome guests. This rapid shift of position is precisely the kind of social relationship that kinship would create. The declaration of genealogy is for this very purpose, to sort friend from foe. Limhi declares a day of rejoicing not simply because Ammon has arrived, but because he now "know[s] of a surety that my brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla are yet alive." The question we should ask is why he would ever doubt it. Zeniff had left with many fewer people that were left in Zarahemla. Why would Limhi have even imagined that "his brethren" in Zarahemla would not be alive? When Zeniff leaves with his party, the union of the Nephites and Zarahemlaites was reasonably new, and certainly would have already seen its difficulties. It is probably that some of the contentions that reached a head in Benjamin’s reign had already begun to surface with Limhi left. When combined with the years out of contact, the contentions may have been imagined to have increased to the point where the lineal/cultural Zarahemlaites might have turned on the lineal/cultural Nephites, who were Limhi’s "brethren." In their difficult economic situation, Limhi’s people would have been unable to send a party to find Zarahemla, and the lack of communication from Zarahemla to them must have seemed fatalistic. Mosiah 7:15 15 For behold, we are in bondage to the Lamanites, and are taxed with a tax which is grievous to be borne. And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites. Social: The short version of the Limhite social/economic situation is laid before Ammon. Part of the pleasure in finding a connection to Zarahemla was the joy of restoring the contact with their own people. Even greater, however, is Limhi’s hope that the restoration of the connection to Zarahemla will lead to a powerful ally who will remove the yolk of tribute exacted by the Lamanites. This is a tremendous turnaround, and suggests that there were some parts of the exchange between Ammon and Limhi that we do not have. We must suppose that Limhi went from assuming the Zarahemlaites all dead to presuming that they were large and powerful enough to contest with the Lamanites. That is a great leap, and would seem to require that Ammon have told Limhi more about the current situation in Zarahemla. Our other possibility is that Limhi would assume that Zarahemla was reasonable powerful if it were able to spare the men for the search party, as well as outfit them. Limhi’s contention that it would be better to be slaves to the Nephites than tributaries of the Lamanites is probably hyperbole. While it might possibly be true, to know that Nephite slavery would be better presumes a knowledge of Nephite slavery, a thing Benjamin insists he has not had his people practice. Indeed, for kinsmen to become slaves would require significant destitution. It is most likely that this is exaggerated language to stress the pain of their current situation, and to elicit the assistance of Zarahemla in a fight they know nothing of as yet. Mosiah 7:16 16 And now, king Limhi commanded his guards that they should no more bind Ammon nor his brethren, but caused that they should go to the hill which was north of Shilom, and bring their brethren into the city, that thereby they might eat, and drink, and rest themselves from the labors of their journey; for they had suffered many things; they had suffered hunger, thirst, and fatigue. Textual: It is quite certain that Limhi was not made aware of the rest of Ammon’s party until Ammon knew that there would be a favorable reception for them. While Ammon and his small group were imprisoned, they would not have discussed the location of their brethren on the hill. Since we do not read of this particular discussion, it appears to have been on the plates, but synopsized rather than cited. Since this exchange does not necessarily move the story forward, Mormon can readily ignore the citation and abridge this section. These, then, would be Mormon’s words that are condensing the account before him. Mosiah 7:17 17 And now, it came to pass on the morrow that king Limhi sent a proclamation among all his people, that thereby they might gather themselves together to the temple, to hear the words which he should speak unto them. As Limhi had said, he declared a day of rejoicing for his people. That they were to gather themselves together required both that a proclamation be sent and that the people leave their fields. As with other settlements, including Zarahemla, the people do not live within the city/town proper, but most live outside on their land. This is the reason that a proclamation must be sent out. There is no other way to communicate effectively with the scattered population. The very fact that the people were gathered leads to the rejoicing that Limhi indicated. This is because usually only two occasions would pull the people from their fields, war and festival. Since this was not war, it would be festival, by the very fact that all came together. The coming together would require them to remain for at least a day, and to therefore come provisioned. It is most likely that provisions would be shared, the communal exchange of food being almost as important a "glue" for an agricultural society as gossip in the markets. The people come together to the temple. The temple in Limhi’s city would probably follow the same pattern as other Mesoamerican temples. With the stepped pyramid, the temple proper would be an excellent platform for public focus on the king, as well as creating a reasonable way of hearing the speaker. As with other Mesoamerican temples, it would have been built in a large enclosure, a space specifically available for large ritual gatherings. Mosiah 7:18 18 And it came to pass that when they had gathered themselves together that he spake unto them in this wise, saying: O ye, my people, lift up your heads and be comforted; for behold, the time is at hand, or is not far distant, when we shall no longer be in subjection to our enemies, notwithstanding our many strugglings, which have been in vain; yet I trust there remaineth an effectual struggle to be made. Textual: Mormon gives us the opening speech of Limhi. Interestingly, he will skip Ammon’s address (see Mosiah 8:2-3). One of the first interesting things about Limhi’s speech is that he begins by declaring that their deliverance is at hand. We know from his discussion with Ammon (verse 15) that Limhi expected that the appearance of Ammon was the beginning of their salvation at the hands of the Zarahemlaites. What it interesting is that with that particular connection in mind, Limhi neglects to introduce Ammon and his brethren. Here is Limhi proclaiming a new hope for temporal salvation that is based in Ammon and his brethren, and he fails to even mention them! The most likely reason is that it was superfluous. It is quite unlikely that such momentous news had not already spread throughout the land, and been one of the reasons given for the gathering to this special occasion festival. Limhi doesn’t introduce them because he doesn’t need to, they are already well known – by reference although not by face. The next question to be asked of the text is the reason that Mormon includes this text but abbreviates Ammon’s discourse. Limhi’s text does two things, it recounts some important history, and it dwells on the faith of the people. Both of those topics are of interest to Mormon, with the second more important than the first (historical information is frequently abbreviated). When Ammon begins, he recounts information about Benjamin’s new covenant that would have been tremendously important to his immediate audience, but superfluous to anyone reading Mormon’s work that had just spent so much space on Benjamin’s discourse. Mosiah 7:19 19 Therefore, lift up your heads, and rejoice, and put your trust in God, in that God who was the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; and also, that God who brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, and caused that they should walk through the Red Sea on dry ground, and fed them with manna that they might not perish in the wilderness; and many more things did he do for them. Mosiah 7:20 20 And again, that same God has brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, and has kept and preserved his people even until now; and behold, it is because of our iniquities and abominations that he has brought us into bondage. Limhi began his discourse with a promise of salvation, noting that "notwithstanding our many strugglings, which have been in vain; yet I trust there remaineth an effectual struggle to be made." His people have made some attempts before to rid themselves of the yoke of the Lamanites, and now he is promising that it will happen. How will this happen? Limhi’s confidence in their delivery clearly hinges upon the arrival of Ammon. What Limhi sees in this is a connection to Zarahemla, but also a reconnection with the people of God. The images he uses to build confidence in his people for yet one more struggle are two examples of exodus. The first is the Mosaic exodus which saves Israel from Egypt. The second is the Lehite exodus, which saves Lehi’s family from the destruction of Jerusalem. Although unstated, the combination of Ammon’s arrival from afar and these two examples of the type of salvation they may expect suggest that Limhi sees their salvation not in a rescuing invasion by the Zarahemlaites, but an exodus of his people to Zarahemla. In their previous struggles, they were struggles-in-place. They were attempts to create some type of military solution that allowed them to remain in the land of Nephi. That situation has proven overwhelming to this point for the Limhites. The arrival of Ammon’s party, however, gives the Limhites a connection to another place to which they may escape. Thus the possibility of salvation is renewed because of the discovery of the continued existence of Zarahemla, and place which is seen as a possible refuge. A last question to be asked is why the Limhites had not previously seen an exodus as a means of salvation. What difference did it make that Zarahemla still existed? Why couldn’t they leave without regard to Zarahemla? The answer is, of course, speculation, but in the context of the model that we are developing for the cultural milieu of the Book of Mormon world, the answer may be suggested. The answer lies in the populated nature of the land. Were the New World devoid of populations, then the Limhites could strike off in a direction away from the Lamanites, and simply settle in uninhabited lands. That they did not do so, and saw an exodus as a possibility only after learning of the continued existence of Zarahemla suggests that they knew the land to be populated, and that entering a land already occupied with a population the size of a town would be an unwelcome intrusion. They would be trading a military difficulty with the known Lamanites for a military difficulty with unknown Lamanites. Zarahemla, however, offers refuge, not only through lineage, but through the explicit connection represented by Zarahemla’s representatives (Ammon and party). Mosiah 7:21 21 And ye all are witnesses this day, that Zeniff, who was made king over this people, he being over-zealous to inherit the land of his fathers, therefore being deceived by the cunning and craftiness of king Laman, who having entered into a treaty with king Zeniff, and having yielded up into his hands the possessions of a part of the land, or even the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom; and the land round about— Rhetorical: Limhi begins to recount his people’s history. This is not because they do not know it, but because that history frames current events. When Limhi recounts the arrival of his people in the land of Nephi, he has Zeniff be "over-zealous" and "deceived." These are surely not the words that Zeniff uses to describe his negotiations as we will see in Zeniff’s account. In the current context, however, Limhi is accounting for their current situation by appealing to the sins of their fathers. This separation between the sins of the fathers that have led to bondage and the righteousness of his current people under bondage will allow Limhi to encourage that faith to remove them from bondage. It is also possible that the recounting of the deception of the Lamanites is given to reiterate the difficulties inherit in remaining in the land of Nephi, and preparing his people psychologically for the eventual move to Zarahemla. Geographical: Sorenson presumes that the City of Nephi (pre-Zarahemla) and the City of Lehi-Nephi are the same, and places them both at the archaeological site of Kaminaljuyu (Sorenson 1985, p. 169). While he is able to make the geography fit, it is also possible that there is a difference between Lehi-Nephi and Nephi proper. When Zeniff returns to the land of his fathers, he does not return specifically to the city of his fathers. While "lands" were attached to cities as dependent areas, it is also possible that "lands" may be a generic area. Particularly since Sorenson suggests that a reason for the return of Zeniff might have been arable land (Sorenson 1985, p. 161), Zeniff’s intentions my have been more upon land than city. The reason for questioning the conclusion that Lehi-Nephi and Nephi were the same place comes from our history of Mosiah I and the City of Nephi. When Mosiah fled, he did not bring all of the Nephites with him. In the relatively short time that Zeniff and his people were gone, we cannot assume that all of the lineal Nephites would have vanished from the area. Zeniff makes no indication that he meets any kin. His negotiations are with a Lamanite king (to whom the city of Nephi is subservient, however it might be correlated with Lehi-Nephi). With the relative dominance and richness of Kaminaljuyu at this point it time, it would seem rather odd that it would be voluntarily abandoned to a small group of people who would be seen as dissenters by the remaining lineal Nephites in the city. Politically, a smaller village of Lehi-Nephi in the land of Nephi makes more sense in the text than a correlation with the previous city of Nephi. Mosiah 7:22 22 And all this he did, for the sole purpose of bringing this people into subjection or into bondage. And behold, we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind, and one half of the increase of our flocks and our herds; and even one half of all we have or possess the king of the Lamanites doth exact of us, or our lives. Historical: Limhi specifically mentions "tribute" as the mechanism of the transfer of goods to the Lamanite king. As has been previously noted, this is the general model of Mesoamerican political conflicts. Military actions and political alliances were made such that dependencies were made between towns and villages and the larger, more powerful, cities. Tribute was exacted which created a flow of goods into the larger city, and increased its wealth. The Codex Mendoza is a post-conquest codex that is a tribute record for the city of Tenochtitlan. It describes the types of goods that are sent to the capital city of the Mexica. In the case of Tenochtitlan, the tribute is in luxury items, not specifically foodstuffs. For the Limhites, however, it may be that their current value is in food production rather than the creation of luxury items. While such things were clearly created for king Noah, the current state of the people may not allow for the time nor materials for such excess creation of luxury items. The extreme tribute of the Limhites (half of their produce) would appear to be related to their past "crimes" in the eyes of the Lamanites, for the tribute is enforceable by forfeiture of life. This is a military threat that clearly may be carried out. Where the people of Zeniff had been able to withstand Lamanite military actions, the current Limhites are not sufficiently strong to resist, and indeed, and kept in a position where military rebellion is not possible. This is a more extreme version of tribute than is seen in most cases in later Mesoamerican history, and is probably punishment on top of tribute. Mosiah 7:23 23 And now, is not this grievous to be borne? And is not this, our affliction, great? Now behold, how great reason we have to mourn. Mosiah 7:24 24 Yea, I say unto you, great are the reasons which we have to mourn; for behold how many of our brethren have been slain, and their blood has been spilt in vain, and all because of iniquity. Rhetorical: Limhi began this address by encouraging the faith of his people (verses 19 and 20). Limhi’s implication is that he expects that this people has sufficient faith to effect their salvation from their current distress. However, that brings into focus the contrast between their faith and their current situation. How is it that with their faith they are in such dire straits? The explanation lies not in their lack of faith, but their people’s past sins. Limhi begins by asking rhetorical questions; "is not this grievous to be borne? And is not this, our affliction, great?" In verse 24 he explicitly affirms the correctness of their implicit answer; "Yea… great are the reasons which we have to mourn." The afflictions are obvious. No one doubts them. What Limhi must do is make a separation between the causes of their afflictions and their faith. If it is their faith (or lack of faith) that has caused the afflictions, then their faith is insufficient to work the miracle of their extraction from the yoke of the Lamanites. Limhi first makes it clear that the afflictions may not be laid at the Lord’s door – these are afflictions that come from iniquity. That iniquity forfeited the protection of the Lord and led to their current circumstances. While Limhi will recount those iniquities, he does so to publicly denounce them. They are a part of the past from which these people come, but they are not to be laid at the feet of this people, nor at the altar of this people’s faith. If Limhi can lead the public repentance for the iniquities with which they were associated, but perhaps not participants, then the separation between the affliction-through-iniquity and the current faith of the people will have been delineated. Mosiah 7:25 25 For if this people had not fallen into transgression the Lord would not have suffered that this great evil should come upon them. But behold, they would not hearken unto his words; but there arose contentions among them, even so much that they did shed blood among themselves. Historical: It is not clear to what event Limhi refers. The text indicates that there were contentions, and that those contentions led to bloodshed among themselves. This is not a description of attack from the Lamanites in the wars/skirmishes that we have read about, and will read more of. This is bloodshed inside the community. There are only two instances of internal bloodshed in our text. The first is in the original party of which Zeniff was a member that dissolved into internal feud and bloodshed. While that is the largest known number of people shed by internal conflict, it happened prior to the establishment of this colony, and would probably not be seen as a direct indictment of this particular people. The other known incident is when those men who fled with Noah finally turned on him and caused him to die by fire. While that is only one man killed in an internal dispute, it is a great thing for a people to turn on their king, a negation of all of the social learning that goes into establishing the person of the king as one with rights and privileges. It is possible that this particular bloodshed refers to the death of Noah, and that it is particularly onerous because it is regicide, a murder of a person of higher "quality." While we may not totally understand the ancient mentality, differing people could have differing values, and the loss of life could have an impact depending upon the presumed status of the individual. We have some indication of this concept in the military, where the death of a foot soldier is of less note than the death of a general. While the foot soldier’s family might significantly mourn, the status of the general creates a greater impact. Similarly in civilian society, we may hear of the death of a gang member, and not be nearly as shocked as at the assassination of a President. Noah’s position may have equaled in social guilt the loss of larger numbers of field workers. Mosiah 7:26 26 And a prophet of the Lord have they slain; yea, a chosen man of God, who told them of their wickedness and abominations, and prophesied of many things which are to come, yea, even the coming of Christ. Mosiah 7:27 27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth— Mosiah 7:28 28 And now, because he said this, they did put him to death; and many more things did they do which brought down the wrath of God upon them. Therefore, who wondereth that they are in bondage, and that they are smitten with sore afflictions? Rhetorical: In verse 25 Limhi creates an interesting shift. He is dealing with a people who are in bondage, but who are to have faith that they may be removed from bondage. He must therefore be careful in the way he describes their situation, for he must show it to be just according to God, but redeemable according to their faith. To do this, he makes a shift between "this people" and "they": "25 For if this people had not fallen into transgression the Lord would not have suffered that this great evil should come upon them. But behold, they would not hearken unto his words;…" The implication of the shift is that "this people" bear the responsibility of the sins of those others of their people who committed the acts he delineates. God is just in punishing a people for the murder of a prophet. However, it was not specifically those present who were responsible, but they - or Noah and his chief priests (Alma excepted, of course). By making this subtle distinction, Limhi can see a justified God through their current afflictions, but since the ultimate true culpability lay with Noah and the priests, this current people may have hope in their current faith for deliverance. Mosiah 7:29 29 For behold, the Lord hath said: I will not succor my people in the day of their transgression; but I will hedge up their ways that they prosper not; and their doings shall be as a stumbling block before them. Textual: Limhi cites the Lord, and gives a precise quotation. He does not reference the source of the quotation, presuming that his people knew the source. We do not have this reference in any of our scriptures. The two possible sources for "unknown" scripture are the brass plates and the large plates of Nephi (which Mormon abridged). The sentiment is stated differently in Job: Job 4:7 Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off? Job 4:8 Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. The righteous have access to God’s blessings upon condition of their righteousness. When they are not righteousness, they reap that unrighteousness. In Limhi’s quotation, those transgressions become a "stumbling block." This does not necessarily mean that the Lord places obstacles in our way, but rather that our own actions reap consequences that make life more difficult for us. Mosiah 7:30 30 And again, he saith: If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the chaff thereof in the whirlwind; and the effect thereof is poison. Mosiah 7:31 31 And again he saith: If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the east wind, which bringeth immediate destruction. Mosiah 7:32 32 And now, behold, the promise of the Lord is fulfilled, and ye are smitten and afflicted. Textual: The sow/reap contrast is a more direct reflection of Job, but still in a form that indicates that there is no direct connection between the two. Limhi is still citing some unstated prophet. The reference to the "east wind" in verse 31 may assist us in at least a general recognition of the source of these verses. Reynolds and Sjodahl note: "The reference to "the east wind" as an agent of destruction shows that the author of these texts was influenced by a mode of thinking that obtained in ancient Palestine. In that country the east wind then as now was harmful to vegetation. In the winter it is dry and cold, and in the summer it is dry and hot. It carries off the moisture on the leaves rapidly causing them to wither and die. On the Mediterranean this east wind is known as a levanter, and is regarded as dangerous to sailors. It was in such a storm that Paul was shipwrecked, and, with all the crew and passengers, stranded on the island of Malta. (See Acts 27:14-44). Reynolds and Sjodahl Book of Mormon Commentary. Deseret Press, 1955, 2:94). The "east wind" was one of four winds assigned to the four cardinal directions, and each wind brought differing effects. Where the east wind was associated with violent destruction, the north wind was considered to be beneficial (Smith’s Bible Dictionary. "Winds" p. 746). The reference in the Book of Mormon to the "east wind" clearly fits into the connotation of destruction. The Old Testament uses those associations because they originally fit with climactic conditions. Since we do not expect that the helpful/harmful nature of the winds in the New World would be precisely the same as in the Old World (where the east wind blew in across the Arabian desert) we can be reasonable safe in assuming that this is a verse that comes from the Old World, and therefore was on the brass plates. We will see that the Zeniffites must have taken a copy of the brass plates scriptures with them to the land of their inheritance, as the scene of Abinidi before the priests requires a knowledge of the texts of Isaiah on the brass plates. We may also presume that they were written on a more impermanent material, allowing for both a more rapidly created copy, as well as one more portable, if not as permanent. Since the cited verses are not in our Old Testament, they were part of the brass plates which we do not have. We know that there were at least two prophets of the brass plates for whom the Book of Mormon is our only record, Zenock and Zenos. The Book of Mormon citations from both of these prophets emphasize either the foretelling of Christ, or the future of Israel (Zenos’ allegory of the Olive Tree). These verses cited by Limhi are corrective verses leveled at a people in need of repentance, and it is possible that the context of the allegory of the Olive Tree would lead Zenos to such statements about his current audience. However, we do have a specific statement from Zenock that also shows Zenock to be chastising his audience: Alma 33:15 For it is not written that Zenos alone spake of these things, but Zenock also spake of these things— Alma 33:16 For behold, he said: Thou art angry, O Lord, with this people, because they will not understand thy mercies which thou hast bestowed upon them because of thy Son. Although it is not completely clear, the citation would appear to be from Zenock, and Zenock is clearly chastising his people. Although it is certainly not conclusive, the only available material would suggest that the known contexts of Zenos and Zenock would make Limhi’s cited verses more at home with Zenock. Rhetorical: For Limhi, the context is still the contrast between the current faithful people and their desperate circumstances. Limhi uses this verse to explain that consequences follow transgression, and that their previous transgressions led to the consequences that they now suffer. Nevertheless, because those consequences are linked to unrighteousness (in the past) he therefore holds out hope that they may be removed by righteousness (in the near future). Mosiah 7:33 33 But if ye will turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart, and put your trust in him, and serve him with all diligence of mind, if ye do this, he will, according to his own will and pleasure, deliver you out of bondage. Rhetorical: Limhi makes his implicit promise explicit. He has explained that their current situation is the natural outcome of past transgression. Those transgressions were such that the punishment upon the people was just. However, the current faith of the people can reverse the consequence. As the consequences came with transgression, they may be removed through faith. Limhi therefore exhorts his people to faith. Textual: Although this is a chapter ending in the current text, it is the middle of a chapter in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, we are in the middle of Limhi’s discourse, although the remainder of the chapter will no longer be a citation but rather an abridgement of the events of this public presentation. Our current chapters 7 and 8 should be read together as the description of a single public event.
			by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1999