Flow of the River Sidon

[jdaniels]

I've been reading a lot about different theories of the Book of Mormon geography. The river Sidon is the only named river in the Book of Mormon. I suspect identifying the features that are recorded in the Book of Mormon around this river will help in finding the Book of Mormon lands. Many have suggested that the river flows north. I've studied many scriptures trying to understand this conclusion. Can anyone provide the scriptures that validates this claim. It appears this conclusion is based on peoples theories rather than scriptures. Thanks for your help.

[jadams_4242]

I've been reading a lot about different theories of the Book of Mormon geography. The river Sidon is the only named river in the Book of Mormon. I suspect identifying the features that are recorded in the Book of Mormon around this river will help in finding the Book of Mormon lands. Many have suggested that the river flows north. I've studied many scriptures trying to understand this conclusion. Can anyone provide the scriptures that validates this claim. It appears this conclusion is based on peoples theories rather than scriptures. Thanks for your help.

Well what really makes this topic interesting is there are two rivers in that area.

[jdaniels]

It appears that we assume more than the scriptures record. I think it is good to create a hypothesis, but turning a hypotheses into fact can be dangerous and misleading. I'm trying to tie all theories and ideas back to the scriptures and the theory that the River Sidon flows north is one that I can't correlate. Unfortunately, many disregard honest efforts of understanding on this single hypotheses.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It appears that we assume more than the scriptures record. I think it is good to create a hypothesis, but turning a hypotheses into fact can be dangerous and misleading. I'm trying to tie all theories and ideas back to the scriptures and the theory that the River Sidon flows north is one that I can't correlate. Unfortunately, many disregard honest efforts of understanding on this single hypotheses.

I wouldnt be to quick to close this thread out just yet. Realise that it is Saturday night and that people have lives to live.

Try bringing this up on Monday. I'm sure there will be more to add to this thread.

[Cold Steel]

Well what really makes this topic interesting is there are two rivers in that area.

The Book of Mormon almost demands it.

Remember how the Limhi party was lost? It would be easily explained if they followed the wrong river. Had there been only one river, the couldn't have missed Zarahemla.

I think we should call the other river, Tyre. It would only make sense. As for the river flowing north, I think it's more a supposition. The two rivers in the area both flow into the Atlantic, and to do that, they have to flow north. I don't think there's anything that specifically says they flow north, though. Still, I may be wrong.

[jdaniels]

The Book of Mormon almost demands it.

Remember how the Limhi party was lost? It would be easily explained if they followed the wrong river. Had there been only one river, the couldn't have missed Zarahemla.

I think we should call the other river, Tyre. It would only make sense. As for the river flowing north, I think it's more a supposition. The two rivers in the area both flow into the Atlantic, and to do that, they have to flow north. I don't think there's anything that specifically says they flow north, though. Still, I may be wrong.

If Limhi's party got lost following another river, that would suggest that the other river was similar to the River Sidon, the Book of Mormon's most prominent river. This would suggest that the other river was equal size and probably importance. And yet, the Book of Mormon does not mention another river by name. The record talks a lot about wildernesses (probably a semi-desert, according to Hugh Nibley) in all four cardinal directions around Zarahemla, and not other rivers. Rivers would not be very common in a desert, or semi-desert environment.

Limhi's party could have chosen a different route going north that wasn't populated with Lamanites. They appear to have travelled in secrecy trying to find Zarahemla. I think they probably travelled north using a different route avoiding Lamanites, and their route was not common, perhaps on the other side of the Narrow Strip of Wilderness (Lamanites on the west, unknown route on the east). Because they were the third generation (perhaps 60 years later) from the time of Zeniff's departure they would not have known where to go inland to find Zarahemla and just kept going north until they found the bones of the Jaradites. Assuming this was Zarahemla, and the people may have been destroyed, they returned. Just a thought.

[Brant Gardner]

Here is something I wrote for a different venue that lays out the topographical logic for a north-flowing river:

Perhaps the most significant is that the Mississippi flows south and the Book of Mormon Sidon must flow north. The city of Manti is south of Zarahemla, and is close to â??the head of the river Sidonâ? (Alma 22:27). That the phrase â??head of the riverâ? should be taken for the headwaters rather than some other definition that might allow for the river to flow south, is confirmed when we find that when Alma inquired of the Lord concerning the flight of a Lamanite attack party, he tells Zoram that: â??the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti. . .â? (Alma 16:6). The Book of Mormon uses the terms â??upâ? and â??downâ? in ways that are consistent with topography, and may be used to envision the general lay of the land. John L. Sorenson uses this information to describe the reasons why a north-flowing Sidon is most consistent with the Book of Mormon text:

We have more information about the surface features of the land than a casual reading of the scriptures might imply. The recordkeepers consistently wrote about going "up," "down," or "over." (Some readers have maintained that these expressions reflect mere cultural conventions, like the Yankee expression "down South." But in many cases, the scripture connects the words to clear, consistent topographic circumstances; I see no reason not to take the prepositions literally.) This information allows us to draw a neat picture of relative elevations.

A dominant feature is the major river, the Sidon, which flowed down out of the mountains that separated the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla. This river ran "by" the local land of Zarahemla, which lay mainly on the stream's west (Alma 2:15). The only populated part of Nephite lands surely on the east of the river is the valley of Gideon (Alma 6:7). Since travelers had to go "up" to Gideon, and since there was a "hill Amnihu" just across the river from the city of Zarahemla extensive but gentle enough to accommodate a large battle, the Sidon basin must have slanted up more sharply on the east side than on the west. We also know that the river must have been fairly long. Its origin was deep in the wilderness above the highest Nephite city on the river, Manti (Alma 16:6). Zarahemla was downstream. (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co. Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985), 23.)

Since water must flow downhill, if up is in the south, water will be flowing north.

If Limhi's party got lost following another river, that would suggest that the other river was similar to the River Sidon, the Book of Mormon's most prominent river.

It depends upon what you mean by "similar." Both have water and both flow in the same direction. The really important similarity, however (as Larry Poulsen has pointed out) is that their headwaters are within a mile of each other. What that means is that a group of people who had never seen the Sidon were told to go up to the headwaters and follow the river--and found the wrong headwater.

Conversely, we have the really difficult problem of explaining how they never found the Sidon at all, or, if we admit that they did, they could have possibly missed the city they were looking for that was near the Sidon.

This would suggest that the other river was equal size and probably importance. And yet, the Book of Mormon does not mention another river by name. The record talks a lot about wildernesses (probably a semi-desert, according to Hugh Nibley) in all four cardinal directions around Zarahemla, and not other rivers. Rivers would not be very common in a desert, or semi-desert environment.

The number of things not mentioned in the Book of Mormon reaches the infinite. The Nephite lands appear to have borders that stop short of coming to the second river. The idea that they must have covered the entire land is a modern misreading of the text (and not consistent with the ways that ancient texts use vocabulary such as "all the land.")

Limhi's party could have chosen a different route going north that wasn't populated with Lamanites. They appear to have travelled in secrecy trying to find Zarahemla. I think they probably travelled north using a different route avoiding Lamanites, and their route was not common, perhaps on the other side of the Narrow Strip of Wilderness (Lamanites on the west, unknown route on the east).

Since they don't tell us how they traveled, everything is speculative, but if we are to speculate we should do with with some reason. If they travel on the west, they must know that they are going parallel to the location of the location of Zarahemla. When would they decide to turn east? There is only one indication of anyone taking this route (the conquest of Ammonihah). All other travel between the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla occurs near Manti. Why would they intentionally go a different route from any that they had ever known?

As for avoiding Lamanites, that is certainly possible, but there is no reason for it. At the time they left, the people of Limhi were not restricted and a small party could always have left. The story of Ammon and his brothers returning to the land of Nephi tells us that Nephites traveling in Lamanite land were not inherently in danger.

[Urloony]

Remember how the Limhi party was lost? It would be easily explained if they followed the wrong river. Had there been only one river, the couldn't have missed Zarahemla.

Garth Norman has tried to explain this before as well.

"the only explanation of their confusion is that they followed the wrong river, which also had headwaters in that same area, unknown to the grandfathers giving instructions, who had come the other way."

However, contrary to Norman's explanation, most LGT folks maintain that the Sidon is the Grijalva, not the Usumacinta, which is required for Norman's explanation.

[Brant Gardner]

However, contrary to Norman's explanation, most LGT folks maintain that the Sidon is the Grijalva, not the Usumacinta, which is required for Norman's explanation.

The explanation for the cause is the same, the river they selected would be different in the different models. Norman likes the Usumacinta. I have a harder time reconciling the historical data with the Usumacinta than I do the Grijalva.

[Sevenbak]

The explanation for the cause is the same, the river they selected would be different in the different models. Norman likes the Usumacinta. I have a harder time reconciling the historical data with the Usumacinta than I do the Grijalva.

What about the Magdelena? Didn't JS single that out as Sidon, or am I mistaken?

[Brant Gardner]

What about the Magdelena? Didn't JS single that out as Sidon, or am I mistaken?

It also appears that he might have thought that Copan or Palenque might have been Book of Mormon cities, and that could not be correct. It is pretty obvious, to me, that Joseph was interested in Book of Mormon geography and speculated upon it without any serous study. The Magdalena simply doesn't fit the text's geography.

[jdaniels]

I appreciate the references but I'm not sure how to interpret the following scripture which follows verse 6 in Alma 16:6, which you also quote.

7 And it came to pass that Zoram and his sons crossed over the river Sidon, with their armies, and marched away beyond the borders of Manti into the south wilderness, which was on the east side of the river Sidon. (Alma 16:7)

According to this verse after Zoram crossed over the river from the west they "marched away beyond the borders of Manti into the South Wilderness". This suggests that the land of Manti is NOT in the south wilderness because they marched "beyond" the borders of Manti. If the head of the River Sidon is in Manti (Alma 22:27) and they marched beyond Manti into the South Wilderness then using logic the Head of the River Sidon can not be in the South Wilderness.

The verse also records that "the south wilderness, which was on the east side of the river Sidon". This suggests that the River Sidon flowed west of the South Wilderness not through it. Again suggesting that the river Sidon, nor the head of the River, can be in the South Wilderness.

John Clark makes the point that the South Wilderness and the Narrow Strip of Wilderness are probably the same, as the Narrow Strip of Wilderness is the only wilderness that divides the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi (Alma 22:27). If that is the case, the Narrow Strip of Wilderness ran from the Sea East to the Sea West (Alma 22:27). If the south wilderness runs to the sea west and the river sidon flows on the west of the south wilderness (Alma 16:7) wouldn't that require the source to be on the south of the south wilderness if the river flows north, with the river skirting around the south wilderness and then returning back to the center of the land where the river flows on the east of Zarahemla (Alma 6:7).

Using logic though wouldn't the river just empty into the sea by the time it gets on the west of the south wilderness, which appears to stretch all the way to the sea west.

If these scriptures are accurate wouldn't it have to flow in a south-west direction from Zarahemla which is in the center of the land?