Mosiah 9

MDC Contents			Mosiah 9:1 1 I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers' first inheritance, and having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them—but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed. Textual: We have a rather abrupt transition from the previous chapter into this chapter. This represents a break in the 1830 chapters, and a very clear change in Mormon’s source document, so it is understandable that Mormon would create a new chapter. The transition is accomplished by the header information that is left without verse numbering in the modern edition: The Record of Zeniff. An account of his people, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla, until the time that they were delivered out of the hands of the Lamanites The nature of the head suggests that Mormon wrote it. It is certainly introductory, and also requires that the person who wrote the introduction know then end of the story. That very fact indicates that this was not the introduction on Zeniff’s plates, but something added later. Since Zeniff’s plates would appear to be original source material, not necessarily including in the original plates of Nephi kept my Mosiah, it is most likely that this is Mormon's introduction. The alternative is that Zeniff’s record was entered into the dynastic plates of Nephi as a complete copy. With the labor required to engrave plates, this does not seem likely. Even with this introduction, however, Mormon’s transition is problematic, as there is no direct thematic relationship between the immediately preceding events and the record of Zeniff. In fact, from the introduction to the seer and the proclamation of Mosiah as such a seer, one might expect that the next inserted record would be that of Ether. Not only do we not see Ether, we see Ether only very late in the compilation of the Mormon’s work when Moroni is finishing the work for his father. The transition between the material in Mosiah 7-8 and 9 is certainly Mormon’s least literary shift to date in the Book of Mormon. Mormon will begin this insertion with direct quotations from Zeniff, but will end with abridgements of that information. It would appear that Mormon’s logic for the transition was something on the order of the following: Mormon intended to at least begin with a direct translation from the plates of Zeniff (which are valuable to Mormon both for the words of Abinidi and their effect upon Alma the Elder). In order to have any transition into the story on the plates of Zeniff, Mormon needed the historical context of the reuniting of the Limhites with Ammon. The story of Limhi necessarily hinges upon the events surrounding the end of Noah’s reign. Therefore, the story of the meeting with Ammon, and the plans for recovering from the sins of Noah’s court provide sufficient reason and introduction to the specific plates. While this reasoning gives us the place of the plates in the current text, the transition is still very abrupt. Literary: Mosiah 9 begins with a formal declaration beginning: "I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, …" This introduction has very clear echoes of Nephi’s introduction: "1 Nephi 1:1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days. 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." While the two introductions share certain traits, such as the declaration of the writer and the indication of the "learning" and "language" of each person, they are still sufficiently different that it would not appear that Zeniff is a copy of Nephi. Indeed, most of the Book of Mormon shows an ignorance of the small plates of Nephi, and we would therefore not expect that Zeniff would have (or could have) copied the 1 Nephi 1 as we have it. However, it is possible that Nephi’s introduction to his large plates began similarly, and this self-identification in Zeniff is a direct model of the large plates of Nephi. This possibility becomes even more probably when we understand the reason that Limhi begins his lineage with Zeniff. Zeniff is the first of the new kings in the new (old) land. Just as Nephi was the beginning of a lineage (honored by the continuation of Nephi as the king name), Zeniff was also a lineage founder, and therefore it was appropriate that he begin both a new record, and create a formal declaration of its source. As with our analysis of the probably contents of the Book of Lehi, the Book of Zeniff would have included more than a single king. The Book of Lehi would have included multiple "Nephis" and the Book of Zeniff included the acts of Zeniff, Noah, and Limhi (who closed the dynasty by reuniting with Zarahemla and bowing to Zarahemlaite authority). Historical: We have met Zeniff before in two locations in the Book of Mormon. We are first introduced to him in Omni 1: 27-30. We do not have Zeniff’s name from that account, but that is the beginning of Zeniff’s story. We meet Zeniff again in Mosiah 7:9 where Limhi proclaims his lineage to Ammon, beginning with Zeniff. Beginning in Mosiah 7:21 Limhi gives an abbreviated account of the history of his people, an account that receives flesh in Mosiah 9-21, which account comes from the official dynastic history of the Zeniffites. The next curiosity in this verse is the reason for the original expedition. We have little information about the original purpose, only the statement: "that our army might come upon them and destroy them." While this is sufficient explanation, that explanation still requires some examination. Why was military action being considered? Mosiah and his people had recently fled the city of Nephi, apparently being less militarily able than those who forced their flight. We may suppose that with the addition of the armed ability of the Zarahemlaites, the displaced Nephites might have felt that they had the military strength to "correct" the wrong done against them. In this expedition, we appear to see a people who are still looking back to their old home, and carrying grudges against those who had forced them out. Thus this military action was mounted, apparently with the blessing of Mosiah I. Zeniff is a spy for the army, His job is to learn about the people they want to attack to increase the ability of the army to defeat them. What Zeniff learns, and his reaction to it, changes the plans of the group: "but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed." This statement also requires some analysis. We must assume that Zeniff’s original intent was the same as the rest of the party – to scout out a way to beat the inhabitants of the city or land of Nephi. What could have changed his mind? We know little of how Zeniff conducted his spying mission. It appears, however, that he went into the City of Nephi in disguise, using his knowledge of the language of his fathers to fit in (note that verse 5 indicates that he went into the city again). Zeniff was therefore able to talk with some of the people, and witness their lifestyle. We must remember that while there is animosity towards those who are in the city of Nephi, they are probably racially Nephite, but politically Lamanite. As we examined in Omni, Mosiah is fleeing from internal pressure, not external attack. Those who were left in the city of Nephi were those who had developed the wealth and power that Jacob had railed against (and it was they who had conspired against Jacob). Their way of life would have been somewhat familiar to Zeniff, and certainly their wealth and power would have been impressive. As many soldiers have discovered, the average person who is the "enemy" is still a person, and there is much good in all of the world. Zeniff saw this first hand. Nevertheless, Zeniff’s proclamation of the goodness of the people must have had more to it than good hearts. In order for Zeniff to persuade a large number of the invading army that there was "much good" in these Nephites-become-Lamanites, there had to be something that they could see that would cause them to believe Zeniff, as certainly not all who fought with Zeniff against the leader of the expedition would have entered the city and spoken with the inhabitants. It is probable that seeing the wealth and power of the inhabitants of the land of Nephi helped the others to see "that which was good." We should remember that based on the tentative connections between Book of Mormon cities and archaeological sites that Nephi/Kaminaljuyu was much more spectacular than Zarahemla/Santa Rosa. The internal evidence from the Book of Mormon would confirm that difference in size and wealth. Perhaps Zeniff thought that with the removal of Mosiah’s people, the internal tensions would have been relieved, and that the returning Nephites might gain place in the general area, and he probably thought they might also gain access to the sources of the wealth of the city of Nephi. Indeed, the granting of land to Zeniff’s people indicates that there was no consuming hatred on the part of the people of the city of Nephi towards those who had fled their city. Language: As with most comments involving language in the Book of Mormon, Zeniff gives us ambiguous information which we would prefer he had elaborated. The essential information is: "1 I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers' first inheritance, and having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them…." Zeniff is explaining his selection to the group of men sent to spy on the Lamanites in the land of Nephi. The apparent reasons for including Zeniff have to do with his having been "taught in all the language of the Nephites" and with his "knowledge of the land of Nephi." This second qualification is quite easy to understand. Since Zeniff was one who had come from Nephi, he knew the land, and such information would be invaluable to a spy party. However, what is the significance of the first qualification? It would appear that his knowledge of "all the language of the Nephites" was also beneficial. Just as knowing the lay of the land would be beneficial, so too would be a knowledge of language. While the idea is simple, the implications are profound. First, Zeniff is assuming that knowing the "language of the Nephites" will help him in the land of the Lamanites! Why is that? While we might appeal to the common origins of the Nephites and Lamanites, those origins are nearly 500 years in the past, and that is plenty of time for at least one of the groups to have adopted the language of other tribes in the area. More likely, the language of the Nephites was valuable because Mosiah’s people were not the only Nephites at the time of their flight, and they left behind linguistic and cultural "Nephites" when the fled Nephi. At this point in time, however, those genetically, linguistically, and culturally related Nephites have now become Lamanites, because they fit the definition of enemies to the people of Nephi who are the self-defined people who fled with Mosiah. The next curiosity is that Zeniff specifically notes that he was taught that language. The implication is that the language of the Nephites is not a common asset among the people of Zarahemla. In spite of the fact that Mosiah had "Nephite" taught to the Zarahemlaites (Omni 1:18), Zeniff was able to use his knowledge of that language as a special qualification for the spy mission. This statement from Zeniff is quite suggestive that the Nephite language was not the dominant language of post-Mosiah Zarahemla. Mosiah 9:2 2 Therefore, I contended with my brethren in the wilderness, for I would that our ruler should make a treaty with them; but he being an austere and a blood-thirsty man commanded that I should be slain; but I was rescued by the shedding of much blood; for father fought against father, and brother against brother, until the greater number of our army was destroyed in the wilderness; and we returned, those of us that were spared, to the land of Zarahemla, to relate that tale to their wives and their children. We learn here that Zeniff is only a member of the party, not the leader of it. With Zeniff’s hope of a treaty he puts himself directly at odds with the leader of the party, a man Zeniff describes as "an austere and a blood-thirsty man." We must read that description with the understanding that it comes from Zeniff’s perspective, but we can understand something of the nature of the conflict between the two. The "blood-thirsty" description fits with the intent of the original force, which was to find a way to defeat the people of the city of Nephi militarily. As discussed, the possibility of hatred from Mosiah’s people toward those who had driven them from their homeland would be very understandable. Thus the leader of the band was intent on his mission of revenge, which Zeniff labels "blood-thirsty." As to the label of "austere," we really don’t have much information on what that might mean, but it may be that it describes the inability of the riches Zeniff saw in the land to sway his leader from his path of revenge. He was austere because he was unaffected by the "good" Zeniff saw in the land. The conflict that Zeniff raises clearly becomes divisive in the attacking army. We must presume that others either saw at least some of what Zeniff saw, for they had to believe his contention that it was of value. Secondly, the argument had to have become divided between those who wanted to acquire the "good" by peaceful treaty and those who would have conquered militarily. A military action in the ancient world would not necessarily have destroyed visible "good," but may have destroyed social connections. Those connections with other peoples would have been essential to the continuation of the lifestyle. Zeniff would have been arguing for a peaceful solution that would retain the social connections that supplied what he saw as "good," rather than risk their destruction by military action. The ultimate choice was between bloody vengeance and a way to live peaceably in the land of their fathers. At the end of a small civil war, Zeniff and those who believed as he did remained alive, and returned to Zarahemla to mount another venture back to the land of Nephi – this time to invade by treaty, not military might. Mosiah 9:3 3 And yet, I being over-zealous to inherit the land of our fathers, collected as many as were desirous to go up to possess the land, and started again on our journey into the wilderness to go up to the land; but we were smitten with famine and sore afflictions; for we were slow to remember the Lord our God. Zeniff begins by saying that he was "over-zealous." There are a couple of ways in which we can read that statement. One is that he is writing his record from a later vantage point, and is commenting on the relationship with the Lamanites that appears to be in the Lamanites’ favor. The second way to read his over-zealousness is that he was in a hurry to return, and therefore perhaps prepared less than he should have. This second reading would appear to fit better with the next phrase that discusses the hardships of the journey. Geography: Once again we see the terrain dividing the land of Nephi from Zarahemla as a treacherous place. Zeniff’s people will wander through it, as will Limhi’s excursion to find Zarahemla later, and Ammon’s party attemting to find the people of Zeniff. In this case, Zeniff’s people suffer famine and sore afflictions as they travel through this land. Mosiah 9:4 4 Nevertheless, after many days' wandering in the wilderness we pitched our tents in the place where our brethren were slain, which was near to the land of our fathers. Mosiah 9:5 5 And it came to pass that I went again with four of my men into the city, in unto the king, that I might know of the disposition of the king, and that I might know if I might go in with my people and possess the land in peace. Zeniff’s people camp in the same place as the invading army had camped. While we don’t know enough to be able to place this location on a map, we may presume that it was close enough to the City of Nephi to be able to send spies (in the first mission) and an ambassadorial party (in this mission). Nevertheless, it would also have to be fairly far removed from the City of Nephi and in a secure location. The original army would have wanted to avoid detection, and the homesteaders with Zeniff likewise would want to have their safety secured before being exposed to a potential conflict if their treaty were refused. Anthropological: Zeniff takes four men with him. As has been noted, the number four is significant in Mesoamerica, and is expected to show up in many circumstances. What is interesting here is that there were five men who approached the king of the city of Nephi – Zeniff and four others. In later Mesoamerican thought the symbolism of five is well entrenched, and it may have been present this early. The number five is the number for the center, with the four corners of the earth surrounding it. Perhaps taking four men with him emphasized Zeniff as the center of attention, the leader of his party. Mosiah 9:6 6 And I went in unto the king, and he covenanted with me that I might possess the land of Lehi-Nephi, and the land of Shilom. Mosiah 9:7 7 And he also commanded that his people should depart out of the land, and I and my people went into the land that we might possess it. Zeniff is allowed to come before the king of the City of Nephi. Unlike the later occasion when Ammon is imprisoned when he approached a king, here Zeniff is allowed to approach. This suggests not only that the king was secure, which should be obvious since he was within his power structure and there were only five men who were before him. Nevertheless, it is not a question of threat, but animosity. Were Zeniff and his people considered mortal enemies they might have been treated differently. What they were, were separated kinsmen. They spoke the same language, and had the same heritage (though clearly a difference in religion at this point). The king of the City of Nephi grants Zeniff his desire for land, again confirming that the king saw no threat from Zeniff or his people. The conferral of land is apparently volunteered by the king. Zeniff and his people may have the "land of Lehi-Nephi, and the land of Shilom." We see in the next verse that there is also a city of Lehi-Nephi and a city of Shilom, following the tradition of having a central location for which the surrounding land is known. Geography: What might we presume of the land of Lehi-Nephi and Shilom? Sorenson suggests: "In the Valley of Guatemala distances and topography fit markedly with the geographical statements in the Book of Mormon. The land of Nephi in the narrow sense of the term would have consisted of the upper floor of the valley occupied today by Guatemala City and its suburbs (see map 8). It centered upon the sprawling ancient city that archaeologists have labeled Kaminaljuyu ("hills of the dead"). The upper valley's six square miles lie at an elevation between 4,800 and 5,500 feet. The land of Shilom, the lower level of the valley, would have lain between the curving Rio Villalobos and the north side of Lake Amatitlan. San Antonio Frutal, second largest site in the Valley, sits in this flattish zone, near 4,300 feet elevation. "Enormous mounds" found there date in part from B.C. times, although its most important remains are of Early Classic date, near the end of Book of Mormon times. It occupies a position in relation to the city of Nephi, about seven or eight miles away, which neatly fits the Book of Mormon statements involving the two. This Shilom area is about half as extensive as the Nephi portion of the valley. The hill spoken of earlier lies about northwest (by our directions today) from San Antonio Frutal; the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 7:16) calls the direction "north." (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS 1985, p. 168). Zeniff is allowed to take over a physical location that consists of two population centers and their surrounding agricultural lands. That two lands are given to him suggests that they are fairly close together. What might we presume about the size of those lands? First, we should understand that the Zeniffites cannot be an extremely large population. They were certainly large enough to populate two lands, but how many might that be? Zeniff’s people would have consisted of some Nephites, and some Zarahemlaites, and possibly a larger number of Zarahemlaites who might be looking for a new start. Traditionally, those whose inherited lands have become too small (through division among the family) would be those who were interested in new locations and therefore new land. Let’s give Zeniff a fairly large body – say 1,000 people. That number might be able to leave Zarahemla without crippling it (remembering that Zarahemla had already lost people in its own civil strife). When Zeniff splits that number into two locations, he has 500 in each town. That is a small population. It fits well with town sizes as we have seen, but it hardly fills a city of the magnitude of the City of Nephi. With only a thousand people spread over two lands, Zeniff is hardly in a position to be a wealth provider to the king of Nephi, and therefore it is very unlikely that the king would withdraw himself and all of his people from his own large city to give it up to some lost relatives. Further indication that Lehi-Nephi and Shilom were not already powerful locations comes in the next verse, were the first tasks were to build and repair. It would appear that the Zeniffites were given smaller lands, and the residents of the city of Nephi would have stayed right where they were, keeping eye (and thumb?) on the Zeniffites. This would appear to contradict the plausible importance of the site of Kaminaljuyu. However, it may be that it was in a period of decline, and the Zeniffite presence built it up again. Mosiah 9:8 8 And we began to build buildings, and to repair the walls of the city, yea, even the walls of the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom. The building of buildings and repairing of the walls of the city suggests that Zeniff and his people were given poorer lands and towns rather than a thriving one. The industry of the Zeniffites would eventually allow them to accumulate wealth and go on a great building spree under Noah, but at this point in time they would have more humble beginnings in their new land. Mosiah 9:9 9 And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land. Botanical: Daniel Ludlow notes: "Although the equivalent of the word corn is used in some Semitic languages to refer to various types of cereals, including wheat, Joseph Smith would probably translate it here so it would be clear to the understanding of his readers in the United States. Thus, the "corn" here is probably maize, which is frequently called corn in the Americas. It is not clear what crops are referred to by the titles of "neas" and "sheum." (Ludlow, Daniel L. A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon. Deseret Book, p. 181). Sorenson does offer a possiblity for "sheum": "Two other puzzling plants are mentioned in Mosiah 9:9, among those cultivated by the Zeniffites: "sheum" and "neas." The former word has recently been identified as "a precise match for Akkadian s(h)e'um, 'barley' (Old Assyrian 'wheat'); the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal name." The word's sound pattern indicates it was probably a Jaredite term. This good North Semitic word was quite at home around the "valley of Nimrod," north of Mesopotamia, where the Jaredites paused and collected seeds before starting their long journey to America (Ether 2:1, 3). (Incidentally, the form of the word as the Book of Mormon uses it dates to the third millennium B.C., when the Jaredites left the Near East. Later, it would have been pronounced and spelled differently.) Apparently the Nephite scribe could not translate it to any equivalent grain name, nor could Joseph Smith do so when he put the text into English. The plant and its name no doubt were passed down to the Nephites/Zeniffites through survivors from the First Tradition, just as corn itself was. Since the words barley and sheum were both used in the same verse (Mosiah 9:9), we know that two different grains were involved, but what "sheum" might specifically have been in our botanical terms we cannot tell at this time. Perhaps this was amaranth? (Sorenson 1985, p. 186). Social: The statement of planting is not only important as an indication of the important labor that was begun, but a statement of the continuation of a lifestyle. Zeniffites were agriculturalists. As with much of Mesoamerica, their social model was developed around the central services of the town and the surrounding farming areas. Mosiah 9:10 10 Now it was the cunning and the craftiness of king Laman, to bring my people into bondage, that he yielded up the land that we might possess it. Ludlow suggests that the name of king Laman was a throne name, such as was Nephi early in Nephite history (see Jacob 1:11): "Evidently the Lamanites have used the same procedure as the Nephites did in their early history of naming their kings after their earliest leader. Jacob 1:11 mentions that the kings who succeeded Nephi were known as "second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings." Thus it should not be too surprising to discover that the king of the Lamanites in approximately 178 B.C. was still known as "King Laman" (Mosiah 10:6), although the original leader after whom the king was named had lived some four hundred years before. Also, later in the Book of Mormon we discover that the son who succeeded this king is also known as Laman." (See Mosiah 24:3.) (Ludlow, Daniel L. A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon. Deseret Book, p. 181). Ludlow is certainly correct that both father and son have the same name, and both are kings. However, it is not clear that this is a throne name as opposed to a personal name. The relevant passage on the son is: Mosiah 24:3 3 And now the name of the king of the Lamanites was Laman, being called after the name of his father; and therefore he was called king Laman. And he was king over a numerous people. This sounds much more like a personal name than a throne name. Nevertheless, what the name clearly is not, is King Nephi. The City of Nephi clearly came under some kind of Lamanite influence, and one way or the other, the connections to the Nephite leadership line have been lost. It is reasonable to assume that had the people of the City of Nephi continued their political allegiance to the lineage of Nephi, the name Laman would not have been a very popular one for the king. Since the return of Zeniff is not that many years after the departure of Mosiah, the political and social transformation of those who remained in the City of Nephi has not taken all that long. While the presence of a new ruling lineage, with a new tradition, is apparent here, the cultural shift required to accept a Lamanite king (remembering the harsh words of Enos against the Lamanites - Enos 1: 20) should not have occurred that fast. What we must remember is that the internal dissention between the believing Nephites and the ones against whom Jacob railed was precisely the amount of acculturation to Lamanite ways. The division which split off Mosiah I’s people was down those cultural lines, where the believers went with Mosiah, and presumably those who remained were those already pressing for acculturation to Lamanite practices. We must remember also that this analysis depends upon understanding the nature of Mesoamerican civilization at this point in time (and place) as well as understanding that the descriptions of the Lamanites by Nephites such as Enos are typical of statements about one’s enemies. They are statements of social distance, not absolute historical fact. Textual: This statement of Lamanite intention immediately follows verse nine’s declaration of the economic activity of the people. Zeniff clearly links the prosperity of his people and the envy of the Lamanites. Thus he specifically mentions tilling the ground as an introduction to what he sees as an incidence of Lamanite greed (see verses 11 and 12). Mosiah 9:11 11 Therefore it came to pass, that after we had dwelt in the land for the space of twelve years that king Laman began to grow uneasy, lest by any means my people should wax strong in the land, and that they could not overpower them and bring them into bondage. Mosiah 9:12 12 Now they were a lazy and an idolatrous people; therefore they were desirous to bring us into bondage, that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands; yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields. There is a caution that should be noted as to the historicity of the above statements as the causes of the Lamanite action against the Zeniffites. This is Zeniff interpreting Lamanite actions. There is no indication of any first hand knowledge of what occurred. This means that we need to examine Zeniff’s words critically. Zeniff’s presumption of the motives of the Lamanites are based upon an assumption of their economic interests. Somehow, this perception of the Lamanite intention toward the Zeniffites became reasonable twelve years after the entry of the Zeniffites, but was not clear twelve years earlier. What is now an explanation for a Lamanite attack was apparently not a consideration twelve years earlier when Zeniff made the original treaty. What we cannot tell is whether this explanation of the Lamanites’ actions was an explanation after-the-fact, or whether some of the experience the Zeniffites had being neighbors of the Lamanites would have convinced them of this intention. Since the attack fails, we must presume that even if it were an after-the-fact explanation, it had to be based on some other successful domination of a people by the Lamanites. This is the only way this explanation would occur to Zeniff. In the Mesoamerican context, this explanation of the reason for war is completely understandable. If the Lamanites had warred against any other people in the land, Zeniff might have known about the attack and the result, which would be the payment of tribute. Zeniff specifically notes two things about the Lamanites, that they were "lazy and idolatrous." The "lazy" appears to be a direct reference to the Lamanite desire for tribute, since it is given as a justification for the conquest and tribute pattern Zeniff must have noted for the Lamanites. However, the qualitative judgement of "lazy" probably does not accurately describe Lamanite life. The later Aztecs of Tenochtitlan (the city of Motecuhzoma) exacted tribute from many city states, but could hardly be called lazy. It is most probable that this description of the Lamanites is colored through prejudiced eyes. The description of the Lamanites as "idolatrous" is a very specific designation dealing with religion. One becomes "idolatrous" when they turn to idols, and thus away from God. This process is inherently religious, but with the tight connection between religion and culture in the ancient world, it is also a turn to a different cultural system. As noted for the early Nephites, their acceptance of the ways of their neighbors began to shift them away from God and toward the belief and value systems of those neighbors. When these Lamanites are described as idolatrous, Zeniff is describing a religious cultural system that is opposed to the belief in the God of Israel. That this designation should be leveled against the Lamanites in the City of Nephi is particularly important when we remember that there must have been many racial Nephites who were now considered political Lamanites. This shift not only comes in politics, but with the religion that accompanied the political and cultural system. Zeniff is noting specifically that the Nephites-become-Lamanites have changed their religion as well as their political allegiance. Zeniff associates the timing of the attack with a desire to conquer the Zeniffites before they became too powerful. Perhaps this was true, but it does not seem particularly likely. Twelve years is perhaps a little short for a people who were not seen originally as a military threat to become one. In twelve years their numbers would have naturally increased, but the presence of that many younger children would not create a military threat immediately. The only way for the Zeniffites to become stronger in twelve years is to attract smaller hamlets into a dependent status with them, and the addition of able bodied men might have triggered this particular fear in the Lamanites. However, this is still a supposition on the part of Zeniff. It is equally likely that the Lamanites were simply stirring for war with other people (where Zeniff would have learned of their desire for tribute) and the interests of the Lamanites happened to turn to the Zeniffites. Mosiah 9:13 13 Therefore it came to pass that king Laman began to stir up his people that they should contend with my people; therefore there began to be wars and contentions in the land. Mosiah 9:14 14 For, in the thirteenth year of my reign in the land of Nephi, away on the south of the land of Shilom, when my people were watering and feeding their flocks, and tilling their lands, a numerous host of Lamanites came upon them and began to slay them, and to take off their flocks, and the corn of their fields. Once again we have Zeniff’s presumption that king Laman was stirring up his people to wars and contentions. However, the general evidence suggests that this might not have been so. In verse 12 Zeniff notes that the Lamanites wanted to bring them into bondage (which does, in fact, happen to Zeniff’s grandson, Limhi). Nevertheless, the evidence Zeniff gives of the contentions is a violent and murderous attack on a farming community in the south of Shilom. The description of this attack is more in line with thieves than an army bent on conquest and bondage. The difference is in the subjugation of a people versus killing them. If you kill someone who owns something else, you can take what they own. However, if you can subjugate them, you can demand of them some of what they produce now and in the future. The description of killing this small group indicates that the intention was not subjugation, but the immediate gain of flocks and grain. That would be very shortsighted for king Laman, who certainly could have done that at any time in the last twelve years. Since there is no mention of famine, and the Lamanites do not appear to have retreated that far from the lands given the Zeniffites, we may presume that a famine among the Lamanites was not the cause. While we cannot reconstruct the motivation of that band of Lamanites, it would not appear that their actions should have been laid at the feet of king Laman. Mosiah 9:15 15 Yea, and it came to pass that they fled, all that were not overtaken, even into the city of Nephi, and did call upon me for protection. When Zeniff’s people were attacked on the south of the land of Shilom they fled to the city of Nephi, not to the city of Shilom. The city of Shilom would have been closer, but was not the seat of the government, and was probably not as large. The people fled to the seat of their people, the city of Nephi. The description of people fleeing fields into a town for protection underscores the reason for that time of organizational structure. This is precisely what is expected of the outlying farming communities. They are more vulnerable, but the city itself has the protection of a concentration of people, and probably some fortifications. Geographic: When the original treaty was signed with king Laman, it was the land and city of Lehi-Nephi that was given to Zeniff (Mosiah 7:21). Now, however, Zeniff’s people flee to the city of Nephi. Were they two different places? There is really too little information to be conclusive. As noted, Sorenson equates the two. Mosiah 9:16 16 And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle. We have examined the catalog of weapons of war in an earlier discussion. In this particular verse, the interesting phrase is "…with all manner of weapons which we could invent…" It is doubtful that the "inventing" of weapons really mean the creation of weapons not previously known, but rather the creation of the known weapons. Until this time the Zeniffites appear to have concentrated more on their building and agriculture rather than weapons of war. When this idea of "inventing" weapons is combined with the information in Mosiah 10:1, it is most probable that Zeniff is referring to the rapid creation of weapons with which that particular skirmish could be fought: Mosiah 10:1 1 And it came to pass that we again began to establish the kingdom and we again began to possess the land in peace. And I caused that there should be weapons of war made of every kind, that thereby I might have weapons for my people against the time the Lamanites should come up again to war against my people. Mosiah 9:17 17 Yea, in the strength of the Lord did we go forth to battle against the Lamanites; for I and my people did cry mightily to the Lord that he would deliver us out of the hands of our enemies, for we were awakened to a remembrance of the deliverance of our fathers. Mosiah 9:18 18 And God did hear our cries and did answer our prayers; and we did go forth in his might; yea, we did go forth against the Lamanites, and in one day and a night we did slay three thousand and forty-three; we did slay them even until we had driven them out of our land. Mosiah 9:19 19 And I, myself, with mine own hands, did help to bury their dead. And behold, to our great sorrow and lamentation, two hundred and seventy-nine of our brethren were slain. Textual: There are no simple markers to tell us in how many sittings Zeniff wrote this history. It appears to be holographic (written by Zeniff) and copied directly to Mormon’s plates. When Zeniff wrote, he clearly wrote after the fact, and the question to be asked is how long after the fact. The nature of Zeniff’s record indicates that there were at most two sittings, and possibly only one. It might be suggested that a breaking point could have occurred after verses 8 and 9. Those two verses describe building and planting, and would be a reasonable place to stop and pass time before the next writing. This is not likely, however, because of the structural parallel between Mosiah 9:8-12 and Mosiah 10:4-6 (as will be noted in the next chapter). The structural parallel suggests that rather than verse 8 and 9 being closing statements, they are rather introductory to the next story of the conflict with the Lamanites. Therefore, if there were two different sittings, they would fall in the current chapter break, that is between chapters 9 and 10. It is equally possible, however, that the entire record was written in a single sitting. I prefer this second hypothesis since the structure of the entire writing appears to tie the two conflicts together, and there is so much else of important history left out of a first person narrative. Zeniff’s record has the feel of an end-of-life statement that justifies his reign and actions. Historical: The spiritual point of this story is that the Zeniffites are able to defeat superior numbers, and that they are able to do so because they remembered their God, and called upon him. While that is a true principle, the historical situation may have been somewhat different. To understand this particular conflict, we need to review the information we have available to us. First, the cause of the conflict is a "numerous host" (Mosiah 9:14) of Lamanites who fell upon Zeniffites in their fields and killed them. As was noted, this is not the action of conquest, but a raid for immediate gain. The Lamanites who had attacked took the goods, and presumably left, since the area they attacked was not a city to be occupied, but farmlands which they would not be able to defend, just as those lands were not defended against the Lamanites. When the survivors flee to the city of Nephi and to their king, an army is amassed which goes out to do battle against the Lamanites (Mosiah 9:16). This was not a defensive battle where the city of Nephi was attacked, but rather an attack by the Zeniffites on Lamanites. There is no mention of meeting an enemy army, only of the fighting and the numbers of dead. The numbers of dead are widely disparate between Lamanite and Zeniffite losses, with the Lamanites having very close to 11 casualties for every 1 Zeniffite casualty. All of this killing occurs in "one day and a night" (verse 18). This suggests a fairly rapid order of battle. The 3,043 dead of the Lamanites might suggest that there were at least 3,000 Zeniffites in the attack, but that number would be extremely high for the Zeniffites. It is very unlikely that 3,000 able bodied men left Zarahemla, and that such a number would be treated as non-threatening in the original treaty. Three thousand fighting men would have at least a population of 6,000 assuming that the original group had few children or very old men, but approximately one woman per man. Sorenson’s reading of these verses suggests to him that the marauding army was still in the fields, and were caught as they were taking their spoils (Sorenson, John L. The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book FARMS 1990, p. 237-8). This presumes both that Shilom and Lehi-Nephi were close (his stated conclusion) but also that those who fled from the Lamanite armies were able to get to Lehi-Nephi, raise the alarm, raise the retaliatory army, and return to find the Lamanites still in the fields, presumably taking their spoils. While the distance information would seem to be accurate, the presence of the Lamanite army in the field would seem more difficult to imagine. If it were an attacking army, it should have pressed the attack. If it were marauders, they should have retreated. That some army simply waited around for a counter-attack does not seem likely. Putting this information together gives a couple of possibilities. The first is that which is typically expected because the Zeniffites are "good guys," and that is (as Sorenson has suggested) that they met a standing army and defeated that army. However, the second possibility would appear to fit the facts more closely. The Zeniffites attacked hamlets occupied by Lamanites, and killed them before they could raise much defense. Here is how the information fits that hypothesis: The Lamanite attack killed Zeniffites, and therefore justified and required the killing of Lamanites. Remember that Lamanite is a generic term. The Lamanites would have retreated from out of the area with their spoils. If they were after spoils, there was no reason to stay when they had achieved their goal. Nevertheless, the Zeniffites were able to kill three thousand Lamanites in a very short period of time. This means they had to find them, and finding them in their homes would be the easiest. This was not an extended hunt, but an attack on apparently known positions. The ratio of losses indicates that the Zeniffites had the element of surprise. In hand to hand combat one would not expect such a large difference to occur that fast, unless the Zeniffites were superior in personal strength or weaponry. Either of those two are possible, but not likely. It is also quite likely that the Zeniffites were smaller in number (not just casualties). This further suggests a surprise attack. A band of Lamanites who had attacked Nephites would certainly be prepared for retaliation, or at least wary of it. Finally, the result is that the Lamanites are driven from the Zeniffite lands (verse 18). This could apply to causing a standing army to leave, but makes more sense as the removal of hamlets occupied by Lamanites. This scenario is not unusual in the ancient world. Blood feuds are between peoples, not individuals. If Lamanites kill Zeniffites, then Lamanites are killed in retribution – and the ancient world did not typically worry about whether or not it was the Lamanites who actually did the killing. While not behavior we prefer to see in the Zeniffite "good guys," it is very typical behavior for an ancient population. Geographic: Understanding the nature of both this conflict and the one in the next chapter depend heavily upon understanding some of the possible geographic lay of the land. We need to know the general physical relationships between Shemlon (Lamanite), Lehi-Nephi (Zeniffite) and Shilom (Zeniffite). After examining several verses, Sorenson provides the following overview of the comparative geography of these three cities: "From the top of Noah’s "very high tower" near the temple in the city, he could "overlook" the lands of Shilom and Shemlon and "even look over all the land round about…" So the distance implied from the viewing tower to, or even across, Shemlon could not be great. About twenty miles fits both this criterion and previous ones about Shilom and Shemlon. The order of elevation is: Shemlon lowest, Shilom higher, Lehi-Nephi higher still, and north of the land Shilom highest. A sound inference is that Shemlon was nearest the coast, from whence Nephi had originally come." (Sorenson, John L. The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book FARMS 1990, p. 238-9). In addition to gross elevation, the relative positioning of the cities is important. Both Sorenson and Hauck place Lehi-Nephi to the north of Shilom (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS 1985, p. 170; Hauck, F. Richard. Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Deseret Book Company. 1988, p. 72-3). However, each places Shemlon in a different position in relationship to Lehi-Nephi and Shilom, with Sorenson’s conception having Shemlon to the Southwest, and Hauck more generally East. In keeping with the general parameters of this commentary, I am using Sorenson’s construction: "Shemlon was clearly the Lamanite base in the times of Zeniff, Noah, and Limhi; attacks on the Zeniffites ruled by those men always came from or through Shemlon. When the Lamanite king first welcomed Zeniff and his people, who had come up from Zarahemla, the ruler was willing to pull his own settlers out of Nephi and Shilom back to Shemlon in hopes of exploiting the Nephite returnees (Mosiah 9:6-7, 10, 12); but conflict proved inevitable. The first skirmish between the two groups came when Lamanites attacked some of Zeniff’s people "watering and feeding their flocks, and tilling their lands … on the south of the land of Shilom" (verse 14). The Lamanite attack came "up" (Mosiah 10:6) from Shemlon. Thereafter Zeniff put a watch on the Shemlon-Shilom frontier, anticipating a renewed attack. In time the Lamanites did return, but this time they did not try to cut through Shilom on their way toward Nephi. Instead they came from Shemlon "up upon the north of the land of Shilom" (verse 8), hoping to bypass Shilom on the west and attempting to outflank the Zeniffite watch and hit Nephi without warning. Zeniff and his men knew something was brewing, having been alerted by the lookouts they had posted overlooking Shemlon. When they located the advancing enemy, they "went up" onto the bills and fought the Lamanites north of Shilom before the attackers could come around and down into Nephi proper (Mosiah 10:10). Supposing that the city of Lehi-Nephi was Kaminaljuyu, at present-day Guatemala City, the physical details of this entire event fit perfectly. Shemlon would be the lake-side gateway to the Valley of Guatemala through which forces from the lush piedmont area would approach the city. Shemlon’s attractiveness to the Lamanite elite would have included its climate, significantly warmer than at Kaminaljuyu (1,600 feet higher), yet not so oppressively hot as the adjacent lowlands, the old Lamanite base. The border between Shilom and Shemlon would obviously be the sharp bluff overlooking the lake and the curving Villalobos River. Near the river the Lamanite poachers could conveniently have got at the Nephite flocks, while the bluff would have been an ideal spot for Zeniff’s watchmen. The hilly terrain on "the north of Shilom," where the Lamanite force tried to outflank the Nephite defenders, is exactly what the story calls for" (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon FARMS 1985, p. 169-71). The difference in the way Sorenson and I are interpreting the evidence is in the nature of the intruding army on the south of Shilom. These marauders had their victory and their spoils, and were close to their return. That they would have waited around for retaliation when shelter was so close seems implausible. However, the presence of Lamanites in hamlets in the "land" is completely understandable in the Mesoamerican context. Textual: The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon does not break a chapter in this location. Verse 1 of chapter 10 should be read as directly following this verse as part of the same story.
			by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1999