Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
oxbloodangel
captain of 100
Posts: 240

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by oxbloodangel »

Anyone who wants a very detailed and scholarly treatment of Zarahemla in North America must read Jonathan Neville's new book, The Lost City of Zarahemla: From Iowa to Guatemala and Back Again.

Nobody has gone through the Joseph Smith Papers with a fine tooth comb like Jonathan Neville. He and Rod Meldrum just weeks ago were invited to SLC church HQ along with the proponents of the other three major geographic theories for the Book of Mormon. I don't know how those other meetings went, but Brother Meldrum reported that his meeting went about three hours longer than the originally granted two hours to present the theory, because the brethren they were meeting with kept asking them to continue. I have hope that Jonathan Neville's excellent analysis of history given through the Joseph Smith Papers project will settle at least the question of where Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon lands are. Because you know he knew. He was the prophet of a dispensation, like Abraham or Moses who saw all the works of God. He was given far more wisdom than we now recognize when we pretend he wavered on where the Book of Mormon took place.

Happy reading!

zionminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1438

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by zionminded »

Enjoy...

http://www.bookofmormongeography.org/ba ... wayne-may/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by Ezra »

My vote is North America.

The copper mines make complete sence.
Plus the Great Lakes could easily be described as a sea. And or used to be. Ever looked at the depth. Almost all are deeper the. Sea level all it would take was for a little up push of ground to change them from being connected to the sea. But they are huge and very easily could be described as a inland sea: you can't see across them it's like looking at the ocean.

davedan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3064
Location: Augusta, GA
Contact:

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by davedan »

The "head" of a river may not be where it starts but where it branches. (like arms and legs extending from a central area like a spider).

The "head" of the Mississippi would be where the area where the Ohio, Missouri and Tennessee Rivers branch off.

Examples of this are the river of the garden of eden with is divided into 4 heads.

In the vision of the tree of life, there was a spring of clean water at the tree of life but at head of the river where it divided up into branches (head) it had become polluted and filthy.

The most important part of any river was at its "fall line" where the river was no longer navigable. Trade goods were transferred from boat to wagon. It was usually at this point when the river was generally easiest to cross.

zionminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1438

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by zionminded »

More good reading...

http://www.bookofmormongeography.org/la ... w-passage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by EdGoble »

.
Last edited by EdGoble on December 12th, 2016, 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wolverine
captain of 50
Posts: 88

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by Wolverine »

Zowieink wrote:I have just heard an interesting statement about an archeological dig that will start this Spring across the river from Nauvoo, from one of the contributors to the operation. The financers got curious about the scripture in DC 125:3 "Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." Apparently Joseph Smith made a statement that the City of Zarahemla in the BoM was located there along with a temple, and a temple will be rebuilt in the place. The DNA evidence is supporting the idea (the native American tribes of that area are tied to Israeli/Middle East DNA). The dating of local artifacts coincides with the 600 BC to 400 AD timeline.

They did a couple of flyovers with ground penetrating radar and found the outline of a 100' x 200' building (or foundation). They hope to find Nephite artifacts as they excavate. They have secured the rights to dig from the property owner and all government officials.

Does anyone know more information about this? My information, obviously, is sketchy.
I've been watching several videos about The Hopewell Natives also known as "Mound builders"...interesting stuff indeed.

I also came across this quote...by Joseph Smith when he penned a letter to Emma while participating in Zion's Camp.

“The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed.” (The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, by Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), p 324 in care of Community of Christ church)

juniper
captain of 50
Posts: 53
Location: Utah County

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by juniper »

So how could the nephite prophets offer up sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord without the animals that were required to obey the law of Moses? It's my understanding that no lambs have ever been found in the archeological record in mesoamerica. Also the alters down there are all made of cut stone which is not the right material to use for an altar according to exodus 20:25!

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by JohnnyL »

juniper wrote:So how could the nephite prophets offer up sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord without the animals that were required to obey the law of Moses? It's my understanding that no lambs have ever been found in the archeological record in mesoamerica. Also the alters down there are all made of cut stone which is not the right material to use for an altar according to exodus 20:25!
No wolves, either. ;)

User avatar
Sandinista
captain of 100
Posts: 518
Location: Ohio

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by Sandinista »

larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
Joseph Smith was not in Nauvoo when the editorial you mention in the Times and Seasons was written and published. He is listed as the editor, that was common practice, but it's been proven that he was hot the writer. Check with the Church History Office for verification. Every time someone quotes the Times and Seasons article someone else quotes the "Zelph" story to prove them wrong. Both are not directly tied to Joseph but are second hand sources.

The US Park Service Rangers will sometimes mention the BoM in their presentation at the visitor center for the Chillicothe Hopewell site in Ohio. And if the government says so it must be true, right! And the beat goes on!

Wayne May has been promoting this idea for years. The reason I got a Masters degree in Archaeology was that I was interested in Book of Mormon Geography; particularly the Mesoamerican theories. After years of research I gave up. Every setting for the BoM has it's supporters and detractors, some arguments are stronger than others. Frankly, we don't know, and that's how the Lord wants it to be. Proving the BoM is done by Faith, not by finding the ruin of a hotel with "Nephi slept her" scrawled in graffiti on the wall.

All interesting and fun to look at, but be careful of what people will try to sell you. For example, the Mesoamerican theory has generated quite a business in Book of Mormon Tours and cruises, even though there are serious problems with that setting both geographically and politically.
But the money people are making on the tours and other trips is good enough reason to keep that theory alive don't you think? :)

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

larsenb wrote:
Sandinista wrote:
larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
Joseph Smith was not in Nauvoo when the editorial you mention in the Times and Seasons was written and published. He is listed as the editor, that was common practice, but it's been proven that he was hot the writer. Check with the Church History Office for verification. Every time someone quotes the Times and Seasons article someone else quotes the "Zelph" story to prove them wrong. Both are not directly tied to Joseph but are second hand sources.

The US Park Service Rangers will sometimes mention the BoM in their presentation at the visitor center for the Chillicothe Hopewell site in Ohio. And if the government says so it must be true, right! And the beat goes on!

Wayne May has been promoting this idea for years. The reason I got a Masters degree in Archaeology was that I was interested in Book of Mormon Geography; particularly the Mesoamerican theories. After years of research I gave up. Every setting for the BoM has it's supporters and detractors, some arguments are stronger than others. Frankly, we don't know, and that's how the Lord wants it to be. Proving the BoM is done by Faith, not by finding the ruin of a hotel with "Nephi slept her" scrawled in graffiti on the wall.

All interesting and fun to look at, but be careful of what people will try to sell you. For example, the Mesoamerican theory has generated quite a business in Book of Mormon Tours and cruises, even though there are serious problems with that setting both geographically and politically.
But the money people are making on the tours and other trips is good enough reason to keep that theory alive don't you think? :)
Joseph Smith WAS in Nauvoo or environs when the editorials I mentioned were published in the Times and Seasons. I think John Lund does an excellent job of establishing this. And your claim that "it's been proven that he was not the writer", is patently false. But don't argue with me, read Lund's book, Joseph Smith and the Geography of the Book of Mormon, to see why this is true. He has established the bench mark that anyone serious about these issues is going to have to rebut, to make contrary claims.

If I had an electronic copy of Lund's book I would copy his evidence for this. But you can find it on pages 164 and 165 and Addendum 9 of his book, under the headings: Claim #2: Joseph Was Out of Town During the Publication of These Two Editorials (which Lund shows conclusively to be false); and Joseph Smith's Whereabouts from March 1, 1842, Until October 15, 1842.

Actually I will quote this last section, where you can go to verify Lund's claims:
For those seriously interested in Joseph Smith's "whereabouts" during his editorship from March 1, 1842, until October 15, 1842 of the Times and Seasons can go to http://www.drlund.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;: click Books; click Joseph Smith and the Geography of the Book of Mormon; click Web Addendum Nine. There, you will find a complete annotated daily report on the 260 days of Joseph's whereabouts during his editorship of the Times and Seasons. Addendum Nine, in this book, give a brief selection of Joseph's whereabouts.
This is the same as in my hard copy of his book . . . so this implies you can read the entire book on line. I'll check this.

Checking the link, it appears he has removed access to his book, but does give opportunity to buy it. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is actually serious about the subject of the title and certainly to anyone interested in the truth of who wrote the controversial editorials in the Times and Seasons during most of 1842.

Of course, those not interested in the truth of the matter and are impelled to stick to their preconceptions for one reason or another, will avoid this book. He set the standard that will have to be addressed by anyone wanting to be taken serious on their stand of who wrote the editorials, etc.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1793
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by kittycat51 »

I find this topic interesting because I believe in the research Rod Meldrum and Wayne May has done. After reading their research for the first time, the next time I read the B of M it made much more sense in many aspects. Somethings that jumped out at me more with Meldrum's theory are regarding the following: (If you have different theories I welcome your opinions.)

You have to understand the term "this land" which is referred to many times in the B of M. It means the land you are currently standing on. There are 36 Prophecies and Promises concerning "This Land". It would be awful for Nephi to be told all of this great stuff about a special land of promise, but then sorry, it's not where you are currently, it's in a land 1000's of miles northward! So when it talks about "this land" being a land of liberty, if you are standing in Guatemala that certainly is not a "land of liberty". The U.S. is a land of liberty. Nephi was standing on "this land".

Whirlwinds (tornadoes) do not exist in central America. They are of course frequent in tornado alley aka U.S.

The lamanites were wanderers, following "beasts" which they used for food. To use the term of beast as the B of M does is quite different than a general animal. Beast refers to something large. Central America does not have "beasts" that would feed a large group of people. Beast does however refer to something like the buffalo. The B of M authors speak of "beasts" that came seasonally into their borders from the north, meaning they migrated. The buffalo does not extend it's range into even mexico.

The B of M also talks about seasons. (Alma 46:40) Yes it even refers to snow. In 1 Nephi 11:8 it talks about the tree of life exceeding the whiteness of driven snow. How would they know what snow was in Central America? Central America really doesn't have a change of seasons per-say. The temperature change is minimal. It's always just HOT.

When Joseph Smith sent the first missionaries (and many others) out to the "Lamanites" as referred to in D & C 32, they did not go down into central america or even Mexico. They went to the Cattaraugus Indians, near Buffalo N.Y., the Wyandots, of Ohio and the Delawares, west of Missouri. These natives were all told of their forefathers in a special book. The Lord knew where the Lamanite remnants were. Native American Indians are not the same as the people of central america.

There was a large earthquake in 1812 that temporarily caused the Mississippi to flow north...so it's possible when referring to the River Sidon if you believe that it really flowed north. Remember the land changed greatly at the time of our Savior's death. Mississippi comes from the French "Messipi" which in the language of the Chippewa or Algonquin rendering, means "Great River" "Gathering of Waters" or "Father of Waters". Alternatively the name is said to derive from the Lenni Lenape word "namaes" for "fish" and "sipu" a river or "River of Fish". The word "Sidon" is a Phoenician word meaning "fishing place" or "fishery". Interesting parallel.

When Joseph Smith talked about Jerusalem, he referred to a.) Jerusalem b.) New Jerusalem. 2 distinct different places. When he talked about Zarahemla across from Nauvoo, it wasn't "New Zarahemla" or another besides the original it was just plain Zarahemla.

Other than big stone temples and structures in Central America and narrow neck of land, (which everyone seems to be tied up over) nothing else lines up with descriptions from the B of M. The Hopewell Indians on the other hand had many structures that fit exactly as described in the B of M with mounds and cities fortified by heaped up mounds of dirt around them. BTW the Nephites built temples after the manner of Solomon's temple. That was not a big stone structure. Many Nephite cities were burned as means of destruction. 5 being mentioned at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion. You can't burn stone.

Heck even as a child, I believed in one Hill Cumorah.

I could go on with a lot more stuff. But I won't. People can believe whichever theory they choose to and it's all good. Hopefully it's not a testimony shaker. Regardless I think we can ALL AGREE (those that believe period) that the Book of Mormon is true, and it mattereth not where it took place. We do however need not be contentious over it. Sorry if I offended anybody with my beliefs on the matter.

Okay, I'm climbing off my soapbox. :ymblushing:

ripliancum
captain of 100
Posts: 178

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by ripliancum »

larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says which way Sidon flowed. I've read how meso American apologist say how they incoherently surmise which way Sidon flows. It makes no sense it's along the lines of two hill Cumorahs tapirs being horses and Nephites having wooden swords instead of iron.

ripliancum
captain of 100
Posts: 178

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by ripliancum »

JohnnyL wrote:
samizdat wrote:
BroJones wrote:So I looked in the Book of Mormon itself, always a good thing to do, and found this in Alma 22:29 :
"
And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of ALL the NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND, bordering on the wilderness, AT THE HEAD OF THE RIVER SIDON..."
It says the head of the river Sidon is way up in the "NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND", which suggests it begins there, so flows south.

Pls correct me if I'm wrong - from the Book itself, not from hearsay!!
Bro. Jones. You are a smart man, but you also have to read for context.

Here you go from the same chapter.


27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

Here we see that the wilderness divides Zarahemla from Nephi, near the borders of Manti. The River Sidon starts in this wilderness.

28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

The Lamanites occupied the wilderness areas as well as the areas south and east of the wilderness.

29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.

The northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness are the places like Manti, Antionum (where the Zoramites lived) and Jershon (where the Anti Nephi Lehies lived). Also we see the land Bountiful as being north of Zarahemla. That is made clear later on in Helaman when Nephi, having been rejected in the north, comes to Zarahemla.

30 And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.

Desolation is farther north than Bountiful. The Jaredites landed in the area known to the Nephites Desolation

31 And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

It appears that the Jaredites had a pretty large area of control at one point, before being completely destroyed. The Mulekites that occupied Zarahemla before the Nephites did knew of one Jaredite called Coriantumr. Sherem might have been a Jaredite.

32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

This is where things get interesting. Bountiful and Desolation have a boundary where a Nephite could traverse in only a day and a half. Let's say, 80 km in length or 50 miles. During the rainy season, the Papaloapan and Coatzalcoalcos river basins are filled with water. Even southern Veracruz state and all of Tabasco state, when there is a flood of even three feet of water, you inundate 70 percent of that land mass. And the Isthmus of Tehuantepec would have been halved in size precisely to...80 kilometers wide.

33 And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward.

Looking at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec it is a zone of lots of mountains on the south, and swampy backwaters to the north. A fort placed there would have dominated the entire isthmus to make it impossible to cross without taking the fort.

34 Therefore the Lamanites could have no more possessions only in the land of Nephi, and the wilderness round about. Now this was wisdom in the Nephites—as the Lamanites were an enemy to them, they would not suffer their afflictions on every hand, and also that they might have a country whither they might flee, according to their desires.

Brother Jones, I don't mean to be contentious, but one has to look at the geography of many areas. Assuming that the Heartland model were true (and it very well COULD be true) where in the USA could we put the line between Bountiful and Desolation if we use the Mississippi as the Sidon? It would definitely have to be in Canada and Canada is even bigger across than the USA is.
I'm not seeing how this shows Sidon flows north??
Ya it's rubish. They have geography model that's makes no sense.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says which way Sidon flowed. I've read how meso American apologist say how they incoherently surmise which way Sidon flows. It makes no sense it's along the lines of two hill Cumorahs tapirs being horses and Nephites having wooden swords instead of iron.
There are passages in the Book of Mormon that strongly imply which direction the Sidon flows. Hardly incoherent.

Trying to tag the Mississippi as the river Sidon is truly incoherent. I'll post the pertinent argument and passages when I get time. The reader can then judge.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

ripliancum wrote: . . . . Ya it's rubish. They have geography model that's makes no sense.
Your style seems to be one of name calling, ridicule and blatant statements such as the one above. This is a discussion forum, not an advertising forum.

How about supporting your claims ("rubish", incoherent, etc.) with some actual analysis.

ripliancum
captain of 100
Posts: 178

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by ripliancum »

larsenb wrote:
ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says which way Sidon flowed. I've read how meso American apologist say how they incoherently surmise which way Sidon flows. It makes no sense it's along the lines of two hill Cumorahs tapirs being horses and Nephites having wooden swords instead of iron.
There are passages in the Book of Mormon that strongly imply which direction the Sidon flows. Hardly incoherent.

Trying to tag the Mississippi as the river Sidon is truly incoherent. I'll post the pertinent argument and passages when I get time. The reader can then judge.
I would love to see the verse that states Sidon flowed North. That's impossible because there is none

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by JohnnyL »

ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:
ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says which way Sidon flowed. I've read how meso American apologist say how they incoherently surmise which way Sidon flows. It makes no sense it's along the lines of two hill Cumorahs tapirs being horses and Nephites having wooden swords instead of iron.
There are passages in the Book of Mormon that strongly imply which direction the Sidon flows. Hardly incoherent.

Trying to tag the Mississippi as the river Sidon is truly incoherent. I'll post the pertinent argument and passages when I get time. The reader can then judge.
I would love to see the verse that states Sidon flowed North. That's impossible because there is none
I would, too.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by Silver »

ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:
ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says which way Sidon flowed. I've read how meso American apologist say how they incoherently surmise which way Sidon flows. It makes no sense it's along the lines of two hill Cumorahs tapirs being horses and Nephites having wooden swords instead of iron.
There are passages in the Book of Mormon that strongly imply which direction the Sidon flows. Hardly incoherent.

Trying to tag the Mississippi as the river Sidon is truly incoherent. I'll post the pertinent argument and passages when I get time. The reader can then judge.
I would love to see the verse that states Sidon flowed North. That's impossible because there is none
These verses seem to place Manti near the south wilderness:
Alma 16:
6 And it came to pass that Alma inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And Alma returned and said unto them: Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti. And behold there shall ye meet them, on the east of the river Sidon, and there the Lord will deliver unto thee thy brethren who have been taken captive by the Lamanites.

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.

This verse seems to place the head of the river Sidon near Manti:
Alma 22:
27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

This verse seems to place the river Sidon near the city of Zarahemla as well as placing the city of Gideon across the river Sidon from Zarahemla:
Alma 6:
7 And now it came to pass that when Alma had made these regulations he departed from them, yea, from the church which was in the city of Zarahemla, and went over upon the east of the river Sidon, into the valley of Gideon, there having been a city built, which was called the city of Gideon, which was in the valley that was called Gideon, being called after the man who was slain by the hand of Nehor with the sword.

Finally,
This verse seems to indicate that one traveled southward from Gideon (and from Zarahemla as well) to Manti:
Alma 17:
1 And now it came to pass that as Alma was journeying from the land of Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti, behold, to his astonishment, he met with the sons of Mosiah journeying towards the land of Zarahemla.

Based on the above, if the head of the river Sidon is near Manti, and if Manti is south of Zarahemla, and if the river Sidon flows past Zarahemla, it seems reasonable to conclude that the river Sidon flows north.

By the way, I have always believed the idea of a northerly flow of the river Sidon to be accurate since I was taught the Book of Mormon by W. Cleon Skousen in the two religion classes I took from him at BYU. He loved details like this. I paid very close attention to his lessons...except when his beautiful niece Ruth was sitting next to me. Wow, her hair. Her face. Heart-stopping beauty.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

Silver wrote:
ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:
ripliancum wrote:
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says which way Sidon flowed. I've read how meso American apologist say how they incoherently surmise which way Sidon flows. It makes no sense it's along the lines of two hill Cumorahs tapirs being horses and Nephites having wooden swords instead of iron.
There are passages in the Book of Mormon that strongly imply which direction the Sidon flows. Hardly incoherent.

Trying to tag the Mississippi as the river Sidon is truly incoherent. I'll post the pertinent argument and passages when I get time. The reader can then judge.
I would love to see the verse that states Sidon flowed North. That's impossible because there is none
These verses seem to place Manti near the south wilderness:
Alma 16:
6 And it came to pass that Alma inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And Alma returned and said unto them: Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti. And behold there shall ye meet them, on the east of the river Sidon, and there the Lord will deliver unto thee thy brethren who have been taken captive by the Lamanites.

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.

This verse seems to place the head of the river Sidon near Manti:
Alma 22:
27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

This verse seems to place the river Sidon near the city of Zarahemla as well as placing the city of Gideon across the river Sidon from Zarahemla:
Alma 6:
7 And now it came to pass that when Alma had made these regulations he departed from them, yea, from the church which was in the city of Zarahemla, and went over upon the east of the river Sidon, into the valley of Gideon, there having been a city built, which was called the city of Gideon, which was in the valley that was called Gideon, being called after the man who was slain by the hand of Nehor with the sword.

Finally,
This verse seems to indicate that one traveled southward from Gideon (and from Zarahemla as well) to Manti:
Alma 17:
1 And now it came to pass that as Alma was journeying from the land of Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti, behold, to his astonishment, he met with the sons of Mosiah journeying towards the land of Zarahemla.

Based on the above, if the head of the river Sidon is near Manti, and if Manti is south of Zarahemla, and if the river Sidon flows past Zarahemla, it seems reasonable to conclude that the river Sidon flows north.

By the way, I have always believed the idea of a northerly flow of the river Sidon to be accurate since I was taught the Book of Mormon by W. Cleon Skousen in the two religion classes I took from him at BYU. He loved details like this. I paid very close attention to his lessons...except when his beautiful niece Ruth was sitting next to me. Wow, her hair. Her face. Heart-stopping beauty.
Good job.

And notice how in the Alma 16: 6 passage you quote, it says: “Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti”, with emphasis on “away up”, indicating that beyond Manti, one is going up to the south wilderness.

Two points:
1. Two or more passages in the Book of Mormon establish that the Land of Nephi is south of the Land of Zarahemla, and a narrow strip of wilderness stretching from the east to the west seas separates the two lands.
2. Several passages in the Book of Mormon establish that when one is going to the Land of Nephi from Zarahemla, on is going up; and when one is going from the Land of Nephi to the Land of Zarahemla, one is going down.

Also, the “head” of the river Sidon is judged to lie in the narrow strip of wilderness in other passages.

Very good evidence that the River Sidon flows north, being as how it would have to go up hill if it were flowing south.

A good discussion on this issue can be found at: http://bmaf.org/articles/mississippi_sidon__andersen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , titled "Can the Mississippi River Be the River Sidon?" , by Joe V. Andersen.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by JohnnyL »

Alma 22:29 :
And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of ALL the NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND, bordering on the wilderness, AT THE HEAD OF THE RIVER SIDON..."

It says the head of the river Sidon is way up in the "NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND", which suggests it begins there, so flows south.

1828 Webster: 18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.

I see manipulation of content, not anything that shows it flowing north.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by Silver »

JohnnyL wrote:Alma 22:29 :
And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of ALL the NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND, bordering on the wilderness, AT THE HEAD OF THE RIVER SIDON..."

It says the head of the river Sidon is way up in the "NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND", which suggests it begins there, so flows south.

1828 Webster: 18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.

I see manipulation of content, not anything that shows it flowing north.
Going forward, let's be exact in this discussion. I will write my opinions/interpretation and number each of my sentences. When you respond, please use the same numbering system so we can see where we have agreement and where the debate should continue.

1. The way I read that is there was a narrow strip of wilderness between the lands where the Lamanites lived and where the Nephites lived.

2. Any area north of that narrow strip of wilderness would be "the northern parts of the land".

3. The river Sidon had its beginnings in that area which is what is meant by "the head of the river Sidon."

4. We know that Zarahemla was well north of the narrow strip of wilderness.

5. Therefore, the river Sidon flowed from the mountainous strip of wilderness downhill and north past Zarahemla.

Your turn. Please keep it civil.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:
ripliancum wrote:
larsenb wrote:Yes. Flows north. It also originates at a "fountain". The Usumacinta, identified as the probable River Sidon by Ric Hauck and several others, flows north and originates at a remarkable spring or fountain, according to a recent BMAF presenter who has been there.

In my view, May and anyone else who wants to be taken seriously really needs to do the same kind of spatial analysis that Ric Hauck did in his book, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Until they do that and/or show how Ric's analysis is wrong, they are just arm waving.

And Dr. John Lund (published 2012)and others using word print analysis (published, 2010) show that Joseph wrote the editorial(s) in the Times and Seasons that placed Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. May and others need to show how these two exacting studies are wrong, if they really want to rebut the idea the Smith was the author of these editorials. Of course, I'm willing to wait on both of these 'forthcoming' efforts.

To my memory, the Book of Mormon cites several Nephite, etc., groups that migrated to and beyond the Land Northward, never to return. Someday, when I get time, I'll post all of the pertinent passages. Maybe someone already has a compilation of them. Who's to say that any Nepthites Joseph mentioned as inhabiting the mid-West and eastern US, were not descendents of one or all of these groups.
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says which way Sidon flowed. I've read how meso American apologist say how they incoherently surmise which way Sidon flows. It makes no sense it's along the lines of two hill Cumorahs tapirs being horses and Nephites having wooden swords instead of iron.
There are passages in the Book of Mormon that strongly imply which direction the Sidon flows. Hardly incoherent.

Trying to tag the Mississippi as the river Sidon is truly incoherent. I'll post the pertinent argument and passages when I get time. The reader can then judge.
I would love to see the verse that states Sidon flowed North. That's impossible because there is none
There is no verse that explicitly says the Sidon flowed South, either. So what.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by larsenb »

JohnnyL wrote:Alma 22:29 :
And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of ALL the NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND, bordering on the wilderness, AT THE HEAD OF THE RIVER SIDON..."

It says the head of the river Sidon is way up in the "NORTHERN PARTS OF THE LAND", which suggests it begins there, so flows south.

1828 Webster: 18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.

I see manipulation of content, not anything that shows it flowing north.
Actually, the argument that the land of Nephi is south of the land of Zarahemla and is higher in elevation than Zarahemla strongly implies that the River Sidon cannot go south. See the tail-end of this post.

Regarding your interpretation of Alma 22:29, here is my explanation of what the writer of that verse is actually saying, in my strongly held view:

Alma 22:27 goes a long way in clarifying this issue. Why?

Alma 22, Verse 27, describes the extent of King’s (Lamoni’s father) land as follows:

1. It extends from the sea on the east to the sea on the west.
2. It was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness.
3. The narrow strip of wilderness also ran from the eastern sea to the western sea.
4. It extended “round about” on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla”. Verse 28 explains this situation, where it says: “yea, [and they were] also on the west of the land of Zarahemla in the borders by the seashore. He is describing a wilderness along the west sea shore, which is NORTH of the narrow strip of wilderness that impinges on the western coastline and this wilderness is WEST of the land of Zarahemla.
5. He is further describing the east-west boundary by saying that it extends from the wilderness boundary west of Zarahemla and goes through the borders of Manti and by the head of the River Sidon, which has been placed in the narrow strip of east-west wilderness.

In Verse 29, the writer says many Lamanites were also on the eastern seashore. So, you get the sense of almost a horseshoe encirclement of the Land of Zarahemla.

Now, where this gets confusing is if you take ‘at the head of the river Sidon’ as an adjective clause (my terminology) further describing “all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness.

The alternative reading is to take these clauses as attribute lists describing the entire border encompassing Nephite possessions. I.e., they owned:

1. all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness (we have seen that there is already Lamanite occupied wilderness to the west of Zarahemla).
2. the boundary delimited by the head of the river Sidon and extending east to west.
3. the extension of this boundary round about on the wilderness side (to the west of Zarahemla).

This reading of 29 is very much in keeping with the several verses which say one goes up to the land of Nephi and down to the land of Zarahemla.

With the land of Nephi being to the south of the land of Zarahemla, this means you won’t be able to get a south-running Sidon to go uphill (baring a New Madrid-type earthquake).

Book of Mormon verses that use “go up to the land of Nephi” or “go up among the Lamanites”, “went up to”. . . from the land of Zarahemla:
Omni 1:27; 1:28; Mosiah 7:1; 7:2; 7:4; 8:2; 9:3; 28:1; 28:5; 28:6; 28:7; 28:9; 29:3; Alma 17:8; 20:2; 26:23; 47:1; Helaman 4:4;

Book of Mormon verses that use “go down to the land of Zarahemla”, or variant . . . from the Land of Nephi:
Alma 27:5; 27:9

there aren't as many clear passages containing “go down to the land of Zarahemla” . . . from the land of Nephi. However, there are several other passages where various people are “going down to Zarahemla”, clearly indicating the city of Zarahemla is situated relatively low down in the land of Zarahemla and certainly in relation to the land of Nephi.

samizdat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: Zarahemla and the Mississippi River

Post by samizdat »

I will also let everyone know that in the Triple Combination Index, Manti, where the Head of the River Sidon is located, is described as South of Zarahemla.

Sidon flows north.

Another thing to consider is that the people of Limhi were looking for Zarahemla and they missed it entirely, which would easily indicate that they mistook another similar river for the Sidon.

In Chiapas and Guatemala, you have two very similar rivers in the Grijalva and Usumacinta rivers.

I don't see in the Heartland a similar setup.

Post Reply