The Book of Mormon begins in a very specific moment of Old Testament history: “in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah” (1 Nephi 1:4). That precision is remarkable. If Joseph Smith had been inventing scripture in 1829, this would be a risky place to start. The Babylonian sieges of Jerusalem are among the most complicated episodes in the Bible, and even many careful readers blur the details. Yet the Book of Mormon opens its story in exactly the right window — after one Babylonian attack but before the city’s final fall.

⸻

The Babylonian Deportations

The destruction of Jerusalem wasn’t one single event, but a series of escalating crises:

• 605 BC — First Deportation: Nebuchadnezzar carried away a group of hostages, including Daniel and other young nobles (Daniel 1:1–6).
• 597 BC — Second Deportation: After Jehoiakim’s rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city again, removed King Jehoiachin, and deported thousands of leaders, craftsmen, and soldiers. In his place, Babylon installed Zedekiah as king (2 Kings 24:10–17).
• 586 BC — Final Siege and Destruction: After Zedekiah broke faith with Babylon, Jerusalem was besieged one last time. The temple was burned, the walls were broken down, and the king’s sons were killed before his eyes (2 Kings 25:1–10).

It is into this middle period — after the second deportation but before the final catastrophe — that the Book of Mormon places Lehi.

⸻

Lehi and Jeremiah: Prophets in Parallel

Jeremiah, a biblical prophet, was already active before Zedekiah’s reign and continued through the city’s fall. He warned of Babylon’s judgment and urged the people to repent.

Lehi, introduced in the Book of Mormon, was called as a prophet in the first year of Zedekiah. Like Jeremiah, he testified that destruction was imminent unless the people turned back to God. Unlike Jeremiah, however, Lehi was commanded to take his family and depart into the wilderness.

This contrast is striking: two prophets in the same city, at the same time, delivering the same warning — but with different divine assignments. The Book of Mormon even mentions Jeremiah by name, noting that he had been cast into prison (1 Nephi 7:14; cf. Jeremiah 37:15).

⸻

“Only the Poor Remained”?

Some critics point to 2 Kings 24:14, which says that after the 597 BC deportation, Nebuchadnezzar left behind only “the poorest sort of the people.” How, then, could the Book of Mormon describe wealthy men like Laban still in Jerusalem?

The biblical statement is rhetorical, emphasizing devastation rather than giving a literal headcount. We know from the Bible itself that priests, prophets, administrators, and Zedekiah’s royal court remained in the city after 597 BC. Jerusalem was weakened, but it was not emptied. There is no contradiction in imagining that figures like Laban were among the remnant.

⸻

Zedekiah’s Sons and Mulek: Preserved Remnants

A common question arises regarding Zedekiah’s sons. The Bible records that during the final siege, Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes (2 Kings 25:7). Critics argue that this would leave no male heirs to survive, yet the Book of Mormon describes Mulek, a son of Zedekiah, fleeing Jerusalem and eventually reaching the New World (Ether 1:2).

Several points strengthen the plausibility of this account:

1. Biblical wording and scope: The Hebrew phrase benei Zedekiah may refer primarily to heirs or sons present in Jerusalem at the time, not necessarily every male child of Zedekiah. Some sons may have been elsewhere or hidden.
2. Timing of escape: Mulek could have fled during the period after the second deportation (597 BC) but before the final siege (586 BC), a window when some could leave undetected.
3. Historical precedent: Ancient Near Eastern sieges were rarely comprehensive. Some children of royalty often escaped or were concealed, particularly younger sons not in the line of succession.
4. Theological consistency: The Book of Mormon emphasizes God’s pattern of preserving a covenant remnant. The survival of Mulek fits this motif, showing that God can preserve a lineage even amid catastrophic events.
5. Scholarly support: Commentaries note that biblical texts often focus on political heirs rather than listing all progeny. Oral traditions and supplemental records could preserve events not captured in the canonical Bible.

Taken together, these points make it plausible that a son of Zedekiah, such as Mulek, could have survived and later contributed to the preservation of the covenant people.

⸻

A Boldly Specific Opening

This is where the Book of Mormon’s narrative choice becomes important. Ancient forgeries and fictional epics often stay vague about names and dates — “in the days of a certain king” — to avoid being disproved. Joseph Smith didn’t. He staked the opening of the Book of Mormon on a precise moment in Old Testament history. If he had guessed wrong, his story would have collapsed in the first chapter.

Instead, the timing fits:

• Not before Babylon’s invasions, but after the second deportation.
• Not after the city’s destruction, but in the tense decade before it.
• With Jeremiah still active, just as the Bible records.
• With a covenant remnant preserved, including potential survivors like Mulek.

⸻

Conclusion

Far from stumbling, the Book of Mormon begins with a historically and theologically fitting moment: Jerusalem in the days of Zedekiah, precariously perched between survival and ruin. Lehi’s warnings echo Jeremiah’s, and his departure highlights God’s pattern of preserving a covenant remnant. Even the seeming tension over Zedekiah’s sons emphasizes a consistent theme: God protects His chosen lineage, sometimes in ways not fully recorded in the Bible.

For those who claim Joseph Smith invented the Book of Mormon, this opening poses a challenge. It does not read like a clumsy imitation of biblical history. It reads like a narrative anchored firmly within it.