So, Zeniff's company left Zarahemla to try to re-colonize the city of Nephi. He was not the leader of the company at this time, he was just a spy. (The leader wasn't mentioned by name. I shall call him Bob.
) Zeniff's job was, it appears, to figure out where the Lamanites' weaknesses were so that the company could come down and destroy them. Much is missing from this account that could be very interesting. Zeniff said he saw "good among them" and was "desirous that they should not be destroyed." A vague description. To put it in modern parlance, could he have felt that this would be "genocide"? Perhaps he had been caught up in the "propaganda" of the "evil empire" of the Lamanites, and discovered something shocking-- there was actually some "good among them."He returned to report to Bob to argue for making a treaty with them. Bob, being "austere" and "blood-thirsty" didn't like his argument and ordered Zeniff's execution. A fight ensued, and apparently Zeniff wasn't executed, although "the greater number" of the army was killed in the internal conflict.
As Zeniff himself later confessed in verse 10, he was duped by the king of the Lamanites into thinking they could live peacefully together. So my question is, if Bob had won the internal conflict, how would he have written about it? "I, Bob, had to put down a rebellion among my army because of a traitor that was fraternizing with the enemy and actively trying to deliver us into the Lamanites' hands." The winner gets to write the history books, right? Not that I'm trying to make any judgments on either side. It is true that they were eventually put into captivity, and many people died, because Zeniff wanted to spare whatever good it was that he saw. An ethical dilemma, to be sure. (And before anyone goes yapping about "imperialism," and how they should have stayed in Zarahemla, I must point out... the Lamanites willingly allowed this colony to exist. Zeniff didn't realize he was being duped, he was probably very excited in this new development in Nephite-Lamanite relations. Hindsight is 20/20. Insert political spin and/or aphorisms here.)
Even as Zennif was able to build a co-existing bordering community with the Lamanites the Nephites never became in trouble with protecting themselves until they became a wicked people and had been warned to repent. Therefore I don't expect Zeniff to be blamed for the deaths of many Nephites further on down the road for something he did not do.
ReplyDeleteI agree... partially. Placing the blame on Zeniff is unfair. Noah and company were responsible for their own demise.
ReplyDeleteBut at the same time, it was because of Zeniff that they were there in the first place. Heck, the Lamanites were already invading them before Noah was ever in charge. At the end of Mosiah 9 we discover that, while victorious, the Nephites did lose 279 people. The Lamanites came again 22 years later. No record of how many of Zeniff's people died that time, but the losses among the Lamanites at least was "so many that we did not number them." Surely the Nephites did not escape completely untouched. I would venture to guess that there were many widows on both occasions that were pretty upset with Zeniff.
I don't see it so much as placing blame, but rather as looking at the repercussions of a significant political event, repercussions that could be felt many years later. It even set events into motion that caused the rise of the Amulonites on one end of the spectrum, and the calling of Alma Sr. on the other, which in turn led to a long line of his faithful descendants (Alma Jr., both Helamans, both Nephis, etc.)