When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VIII – Meldrum’s Phoenician Connection Part II

Concluding with Meldrum’s Phoenician connection, began in the last post, we also might want to consider that for the one thousand years after Solomon’s kingdom fell, Israel was overrun and subjected to the Egyptians, the Assyrians the Babylonians, the Persians, Greeks and Romans. Compared with the history of Phoenicia from about 900 B.C., they, too, were constantly at war.

From about 875 B.C., Assyria’s rise to power resulted in the invasion of Phoenicia , which deprived them of their independence. The major seaport cities of Byblos, Tyre and Sidon rebelled several times and the Assyrians brought total destruction to these cities in response. In 700 B.C., Phoenicians joined the Arameneans (Syria) in anti-Assyrian League, resulting in the total devastation of Sidon in 675 B.C. Thirty-five years later the Assyrians massacred Phoenicians of Tyre. During all this time, the Phoenicians were under the thumb of Assyria, but in 610 B.C., Babylonia crushed Assyria and later occupied all of Phoenicia. When Tyre rebelled again, it was destroyed by the Babylonians after a fourteen year siege. Not until 450 B.C., did the Carthaginians break out of the Mediterranean and sail to England to trade, especially for tin.

Phoenicia is credited with sailing around Africa at the end of the 7th Century B.C., however, this was not a case of a Phoenician city state embarking on a voyage of discovery, but of the Egyptian king Necho commissioning Phoenician sailors to sail around the continent of Africa. It is doubtful that the Phoenician city-states of Tyre, Sidon, or Byblos could have managed any voyage of discovery while under the thumb of Assyria and Babylonia. Then, too, Phoenicians were always merchants and traders, not explorers, and their voyages throughout history were involved in settling and trading with coastal cities of the Mediterranean.

It is also extremely doubtful Phoenicians would have been sailing to any Israel port for those in Jerusalem to know of their ships and designs. By 600 B.C., Phoenicia’s power base and sailing achievements were over 1800 miles to the west of Jerusalem among the Carthiginians, who were not known to travel to the east coast, other than to Tyre and Sidon, but to the west. In fact, by 600 B.C., the Phoenicians were in a power struggle with Gaul (France) for the tin trade, which was controlled overland by the Gallians. For over a hundred years this struggle for control ensued, until in the fifth century B.C. the Carthaginian Himilco, sailed from this seat of the Phoenician empire in Carthage through the Straits of Gibraltar around the western coasts of Spain and France and continued until he reached the islands around the southern coast of England and the area known to the Phoenicians as "Tin-Land."

As for Jerusalem, throughout their history except for that brief naval period under Solomon, their trade was with the Arab caravans that traveled along the King’s Highway to the east of Jerusalem on their way north to Assyria. Even with Solomon’s shipping, they never sailed the Mediterranean, but the Red Sea to the Arabian Sea and along the Arabian coast.

As for the Phoenician ship capability, even Meldrum admits their ships had a broad rounded hull design that did not allow for the ship, under sail, to 'tack' against the current winds. According to him, not until around 1100 A.D. did shipbuilding utilize a deep keel to help keep the ship tracking the desired direction even in near contrary winds. This was a major design feature of later ships. Obviously, a “broad, rounded hull design” would not be capable of sailing in deep water across the oceans of the world. Deep keels are required to handle such sailing, as are strongly constructed hulls—which are not needed for coastal sailing.

Finally, Meldrum concludes by saying, “While we don't know exactly what methods were used to build the ship, the end result was a wooden sailing ship. So my speculation is that the primary way in which the ship differed from other ships of their day might have been 1. how they put the beams and planks together and 2. the hull design, possibly with a deep hull instead of the current rounded hull. That's my best guess.”

600 B.C. era Phoenician Ships. According to Greek writers, Upper Left: Early war galley; Upper Right: Later war ship; Lower Left: Transport ship; Lower Right: Merchant ship

What seems to be forgotten is that Phoenician ship designs were basically oar-driven vessels around 600 B.C., with either one or two layers of oars, which provided the basic motive power of their ships. It is claimed by Austen Henry, in “Monuments of Nineveh” and “Nineveh and its Remains,” that by 700 B.C. “some great advances seem to have been made by the Phoenician shipbuilders. In the first place, they introduced the practice of placing the rowers on two different levels, one above the other, thus for a vessel of the same length, they could double the number of rowers.” Xenophon of Athens about 300 years after Lehi set sail, described a Phoenician merchant ship as sailing by means of a quantity of rigging, which implies 'several' sails.’

However, during Lehi’s time, according to Herodotus, considered the “Father of History,” Corinth (Greek) Biremes were adopted by the Phoenicians before the end of the 6th century B.C., with three decks of rowers. And according to the Greek writers, Phoenician vessels were mainly of two kinds, merchant ships and war-vessels. The merchant ships were of a broad, round make, what today’s sailors would call "tubs," and the war-vessels were impelled by rowers sitting one row above the other, neither of which could have crossed deep oceans.

While oar-driven ships were sturdy and could maneuver around the Mediterranean, and did so for more than a thousand years after Phoenicians disappeared, by the Greeks and Romans who followed, such ships were hardly capable of deep ocean sailing.

Once again, Meldrum’s casual approach to the scriptural account of Nephi and his ship building lies in error. Nephi would have had no idea how the Phoenicians built their ships.

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VIII – Meldrum’s Phoenician Connection Part I

Finally, in the evaluation of Rod Meldrum’s answers and comments to the questions posed in an earlier post and covered in the last seven, we come to his concept of the Phoenician ship designers.

To understand this, we need to know that there never was a country called "Phoenicia." The land of the Phoenicians' was located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, in what is today Lebanon. Sea people traders became an important society between 1500 to 700 BC. There were two groups: The Canaanites from the South, and the Aegeans from the area around Greece. By 600 BC, the Phoenicians had sailed around Africa. They traded by leaving goods on the shore and the people would come and leave something by it. If the Phoenicians thought it was a good trade, they would take the payment, and the people knew they could take the product. If not, the buyers could either leave more, or take their payment away.

Phoenicia itself was an ancient civilization centered in the north of ancient Canaan, with its heartland along the coastal plains to the north of Israel. The Canaanites who inhabited that area were called Phoenicians by the Greeks (from the Greek word phoinos, meaning ‘red’) in a reference to the unique purple dye the Phoenicians produced from murex seashells. The Phoenicians mastered the art of navigation and dominated the Mediterranean Sea trade for over 500 years.

Regarding Meldrum’s claim, he wrote about Nephi’s ship: “So we must now address the fact that the Lord was directing the building and that His manner of building the ship was different than that being accomplished at the time by the Phoenicians, who were building wooden sailing ships at the time of Lehi in the Holy Land on the Mediterranean Sea.”

This reoccurring theme of Meldrum that the Phoenician ship designers and their vessels were so well known to the Lehi Colony, and to Nephi in particular, that he, Nephi, claimed he did not build his ship like theirs, is absolutely ludicrous. As has already been pointed out in these posts, the Phoenician world stretched from around Tyre, their capital and major ship-building port, north through Sidon and Byblos, both major Phoenician cities and ports, along the Mediterranean coast of Ionia in Asia Minor (Turkey) and to the islands of Cyprus and Crete. They also sailed south along the coast of Egypt to Cyrene and Lepcis (Libya), Carthage (Tunisia), Sicily and Sardinia, and as far West as Tingis (Tangier, Moroco) and along the coast of Iberia (Spain) to the Balears Islands to Mallorca. From there, the Phoenicians moved westward as far as Iberia (Spain) and along the north African coast. They founded Carthage around 810 B.C., which became the most powerful city-state in all the Mediterranean.

Actually, after about 800 B.C., the Phoenician world mostly surrounded the areas of Carthage, including much of Sicily, Malta, and Sardania, especially west toward the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar) and along the southern Iberian coast, and the Atlantic coast from the area of present day Casablanca north to Cadiz. The Phoenician world, assumed to have begun around 1550 B.C., about 20 years after the birth of Moses in Egypt, began along the northeast coast of the Mediterranean, some hundred miles north of Jerusalem.

The point being, Jerusalem, about 40 miles inland from the coast, and at an elevation of about 2500 feet on top of the Judean Mountains, was not involved along the Mediterranean coast, which was controlled by the Philistines in the south and the Phoenicians in the north. When Solomon built his fleet of ships, he did so at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba, about one hundred and fifty miles south of Jerusalem, around the city of Ezion-geber, reportedly the first place the Israelites camped after their exodus from Egypt.

During the reigns of David and Solomon, wood and certain materials were imported from Byblos (Jubayl)—the first Phoenician city, according to Philo of Byblos quoting the original writings of Sanchuniathon. Also, it is thought that Solomon employed builders from Phoenicia to build his Palace and the Temple, which would have been earlier than 950 B.C.; however, it is only known that a workman was brought from Tyre to build implements within the Temple, such as those items made of iron and brass (1 Kings 7:13, 40, 45). In addition, Hiram (Huram), king of Tyre, provided seamen to assist with Solomon’s ships (1 Kings 9:27). However, from that point, there seems to be little interaction between Phoenicia and Israel. During this time, Israel possibly used a port at Tel Dor, though this is highly uncertain, but even if they did, this northern port at Carmel was lost in 925 B.C.

It would be highly unlikely that Phoenician knowledge of shipbuilding was known in Jerusalem (to Lehi or Nephi) in 600 B.C., about 350 years after Solomon. In fact, After Solomon’s time, his extensive shipping and navy collapsed, and though Jehosphaphat tried to rebuild the fleet, it was destroyed by the Egyptians around 925 B.C. (1 Kings 22:38).

It would be even more astonishing if Nephi knew anything about Phoenician shipping at all, let alone how they built their ships, for him to say, as Meldrum claims, that “his manner of building the ship was different than that being accomplished at the time by the Phoenicians, who were building wooden sailing ships at the time of Lehi in the Holy Land on the Mediterranean Sea.”

(See the next post, “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VIII – Meldrum’s Phoenician Connection Part II” for the conclusion to these posts)

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VII

Continuing from the last post regarding the Lord’s answer to these two questions. Though Meldrum did not even attempt to answer the WHY of these questions, the interesting thing is, the Lord actually tells us WHY he had Nephi build a ship unlike that of men of Nephi’s day. He made it quite clear when he told Nephi:

“And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters” (1 Nephi 17:8 ).

ACROSS THESE WATERS. The ship the Lord designed for Nephi and in which the Lehi Colony sailed to the Land of Promise, was built to cross the vast oceans between Arabia and the Western Hemisphere. As has been pointed out numerous times, the pounding of waves and currents, and the drag of winds on sails, requires a very strong vessel to sail in deep water.

This is because a ship in deep water with heavy sail has a tendency to exceed a speed/length ratio of 0.94 and outrun most of its bow wave, and as the ship exceeds 1.34 hull speed (displacement speed) the wavelength becomes longer than the hull, and the stern is no longer supported by the wake, causing the stern to squat, and the bow rise. The hull then climbs its own bow wave, and resistance begins to increase at a very high rate. Wave making resistance begins to increase dramatically when the vessel reaches a speed-length ratio of slightly less than 1.20. This is due to a rapid increase of resistance due to the transverse wave train.

This very sharp rise in resistance at around a speed-length ratio of 1.3 to 1.5 probably seemed insurmountable in early sailing ships and so became an apparent barrier. On the other hand, these values change dramatically as the general proportions and shape of the hull are changed. Modern displacement designs that can easily exceed their 'hull speed' include hulls with very fine ends, long hulls with relatively narrow beam and wave-piercing designs, such as modern naval vessels. For wooden sailing ships of the European era, such problems typically did not exist since the width to length ratio precluded such speeds, typically at speed/length ratios of under 1.0. And obviously, no coastal vessel ever reached such hull speeds and thus never experienced such hull pounding as deep ocean vessels.

As an example, a 100-foot boat length at the water line translates to a maximum hull speed of 1.34 at 13.4 knots; an 80-foot length would be 11.99 knots to a maximum hull speed of 1.34; and a 120-foot length reaches maximum hull speed of 1.34 at 14.68 knots, while a 60 foot hull reaches maximum hull speed of 1.34 at 10.38 knots. Columbus’ ship, the “Santa Maria” (shown above), a merchant cargo vessel, was about 66 feet long at the water line, which means it reached its maximum hull speed of 1.34 doing 10.89 knots (the maximum knot speed for a Carrack was 8 knots), and Columbus probably averaged about 4 to 5 knots.

In addition, deep ocean ships then as now, are subject to the pounding of ocean surface waves and sea swell as well as effects of wind and weather. These movements can be stressful for passengers and equipment, and must be controlled if possible. The rolling movement can be controlled, to an extent, by ballasting or by devices such as fin stabilizers. Pitching movement is more difficult to limit and can be dangerous if the bow submerges in the waves, a phenomenon called pounding. Sometimes, ships must change course or speed to stop violent rolling or pitching. Unfortunately, ships “driven forth before the wind” are unable to do this with the exception of lowering the sail, which then makes rudder control almost impossible.

During the later age of sail, the timbers—wooden support frames of a sailing ship—could be pounded so hard in rough seas that the phrase “Shiver the timbers” came into use (later became the slang term “Shiver me timbers” used by pirates meant to convey a feeling of fear and awe—much like “Well blow me down” or “May God strike me dead”). In heavy seas, ships would be lifted up and pounded down so hard as to “shiver” the timbers, startling the sailors. This was also reminiscent of the splintering of timbers from such pounding.

Consequently, the extreme pounding of waves on the hull and the torque of wind on sails, required a very strong, heavy built ship for the Lehi Colony to sail the oceans to reach the Land of Promise, which was something that man in 600 B.C., and for many years afterward, did not know how to build. But the Lord did, and instructed Nephi to build his ship “not after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men” (1 Nephi 18:2).

(See the next post, “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VIII – Meldrum’s Phoenician Connection” to see how erroneous thinking leads to mistakes in judgment)

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VI

Continuing from the last post regarding two questions that were asked in an earlier blog: “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to build a ship unlike ones built by man? And Why did the Lord tell Nephi to work the timbers unlike that of man?” and Rod Meldrum’s uninformed answers, Meldrum wrote in his series of “maybes” of possible reasons:

“11. Maybe the Lord showed Nephi how to build a more efficient method of controlling the sails”

Actually, the lateen sail of the “dhows,” and later used on European designs and even later, added to the mizzen (stern) mast on European square-rigged sailing ships, have been found to be the most versatile and efficient type of sail. On the other hand, lateen sails are not pushed by the wind (driven forth before the wind). Only square sails (square-rigged) ships can be driven forth before the wind, especially when sailed by non-mariners of the time. Later, of course, men found out how to tack into the wind, zig-zagging across the direct wind flow, and moving sails so they actually pulled the ship forward.

Left: “dhow” boat with Lateen Sail; Center: Later coastal Caravel Ship with Lateen sails; Right: Deep Sea Caravel Ship with rear Lateen sail

“12. Maybe it had a 'self bailing' system for the upper deck to keep sea water from entering the hold”

Another one of the suggestions that is not worthy of response. Nobody is going to consider that a ship built with a “self-bailing” system to ship excess water as a ship built not after the manner of man. A ship built—not a system built! Interestingly, no ship designer in the 21st century has yet to figure out how not to have excess water not end up in the bilges to be pumped out mechanically.

That concludes Meldrum’s “maybes” to the two questions: 1) “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to build a ship unlike ones built by man?” And 2) “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to work the timbers unlike that of man?”

Note that the questions dealt with WHY, yet all Meldrum’s answers dwelt with HOW. Even when he goes on to add further comment, it all deals with HOW the ship was built. He wrote:

“We can deduce that it had no motor and wasn't powered. It was not like the Jaredite barges but was still considered a "ship." So it could not have been too radically different from ships of their day, for it was still, when all is said and done, a wooden sailing ship. Working the timbers in a different way would not necessarily cause the vessel they were making to no longer be a ship.”

Interestingly enough, there is absolutely no suggestion it was not a ship. Nephi tells us numerous times that it was a “ship” (1 Nephi 17:17-18; 18:2, 4-6, 8, 13, 22). So why even suggest it might not have been a ship? Of course it was a ship. Of course, the definition of a ship in 1828 was: “A vessel or building of a peculiar structure, adapted to navigation, or floating on water by means of sails; particularly ships and other vessels of a large kind, bearing masts—in distinction from boats.”

So what were the common ships of 600 B.C.? Left: A small “dhow,” a boat; Center: A large “dhow,” a ship; Right: A Phoenician replica ship

Meldrom continues: “There are many ways that wooden beams can be put together, as well as the outer planking, the waterproofing, structural elements, etc. For example, did they use mortise/tenon joints or post/beam construction? Either would not have significantly changed the overall configuration of the ship. The point is that working the timbers themselves does not necessitate a radical departure from the overall configuration of then current ships.”

There were basically three ways to work timbers in 600 B.C. in order to shape the hull of a ship. 1) Shaping – using an adze to chip away at the wood until you have the shape you want; 2) Natural – using tree limbs that grew in the shapes you wanted, such as using for curved ribbing; 3) Bending – using wood strips and bending them under pressure. However, the main issue in working timbers of the day would have been a consideration of strength. Coastal vessels, which was all that existed in 600 B.C. along the Nile, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea, did not require strength, but needed light-weight wood with minimal structural work so that these coastal vessels could maneuver close into shore, around islands, etc. These ships would have not had much in the way of interior beams and framing, few, if any bulkheads, and probably no longitudinal frames. Masts were minimal, with moveable yards raised by halyards to raise and lower the single sail.

If a ship was to sail out of sight of land, out into deep water, especially crossing vast oceans where winds and currents are fierce and the pounding on the hull is extreme, then a very different type of construction would be required—thus the working of the timbers would be considerably different.

Overall configuration of these ships are all VERY different, yet all built with wood, with a radical departure from Left: Rounded and curved hull design with oars; Center: Level rail with distinct curve to sharp bow and stern; Right: High bow and stern design, with transom stern and wide bow

The interesting thing is, the Lord actually tells us WHY he had Nephi build a ship unlike that of men of Nephi’s day. He made it quite clear when he told Nephi:

(See the next post, “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VII” for the answer to the two questions posed and evidently ignored by Meldrum)

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part V

Continuing from the last post regarding two questions that were asked in an earlier blog: “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to build a ship unlike ones built by man? And Why did the Lord tell Nephi to work the timbers unlike that of man?” and Rod Meldrum’s uninformed answers, Meldrum wrote in his series of “maybes” of possible reasons:

“4. Maybe the Lord had Nephi add water catchment systems to gather rain water for drinking”

This suggestion does not even merit an answer. Could anyone, especially Nephi, feel that having a manner to collect water at sea was cause to say the ship was not built after the manner of men?

“5. Maybe Nephi's ship had separate rooms below deck for individual families, rather than a large open hull”

This is only the second reasonable suggestion Meldrum has made. Since passenger ships were unknown in 600 B.C., and since at least five or six families were represented on board for the length of the voyage, separate areas seems logical; however, it would be more likely that blankets or rugs were stretched across open spaces to divide the hull into rooms, like was done in the Beduin tents of the day, which Lehi would surely have had in his eight years wandering in the desert.

“6. Maybe Nephi's ship used more than one mast, unlike the Phoenician ships”

First of all, some later Phoenician ships had two masts around the time of Lehi (as shown above), though they were still oar-driven. Secondly, as stated earlier, it is unlikely those from Jerusalem living inland and on top of a mountain, knew much about Phoenician ships. If anything, they would have known more about Arabian and Egyptian ships in the area of Ezion-geber, where Solomon earlier had his fleet docked about a thousand years before Lehi left Jerusalem, and where a major ship building port existed in Lehi’s time as the colony passed by their area on the way to the Red Sea.

“7. Maybe Nephi had a larger/more effective rudder for better control of his ship”

Rudders of the day were on the outside of the ship—either one along one side of the ship at the rear, or one on either side, providing two. The problem with such rudders, is that they require brute force to move when confronted with ocean waves and strong currents. In any event, larger does not make better in rudders, unless they are connected and moved hydraulically, or with ropes and wires like European ships two thousand years later.

“8. Maybe Nephi's ship had higher sides or bows to handle rough seas better”

Again, Meldrum does not understand the dynamics of waves and ocean movement. One look at later European vessels, such as that of Columbus (see pic at left), shows the fallacy of high sides on an ocean vessel. Such height would be meaningless. Even bows did not have to be too high, though higher than the deck with a gentle slope downward, such as in the later Caravels. It was the sterncastle that was important, to keep from being pooped or swamped by a following sea.

“9. Maybe Nephi's ship was larger, with more storage capacity for food, water, supplies”

In 600 B.C., the Bireme warship, with two decks of oars, was almost three times as long as Columbus’ ship two thousand years later. Large ships were not unknown in Lehi’s time, and about the size of the much later Mayflower. Both these ships were basically cargo ships. So Meldrum’s idea of a larger ship with more storage capacity would require a ship of some 150-foot length, requiring upwards of fifty or more men to handle. This hardly sounds like the ship Nephi built.

“10. Maybe the Lord showed Nephi a different system for sealing the wooden hull planks”

This is very possible, however, the material to do so would have to have been available to Nephi in 600 B.C. in the area of Oman along the Arabian Sea. Nearly two thousand years earlier, the Lord told Noah to seal his Ark with pitch, which may have been pitch from pine trees, which was discovered as a source of sealing about one hundred years ago. However, there are no pine trees in Oman, though the Frankincense tree was available, which provides an incense sap. Once again, however, sealing ships to make them water-right was common knowledge in the area in 600 B.C. and long before.

(See the next post, “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part VI” for responses to more of Meldrum’s “maybes” that fall far short of knowledgeable answers)

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part IV

Continuing from the last post regarding two questions that were asked in an earlier blog: “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to build a ship unlike ones built by man? And Why did the Lord tell Nephi to work the timbers unlike that of man?” and Rod Meldrum’s uninformed answers, Meldrum wrote in his series of “maybes” of possible reasons:

“6. Maybe they built the framework first and then 'sided' the hull rather than build the hull first and insert the framework”

According to maritime and knowledgeable archaeologists on this matter, there were five methods of ship-building known prior to and during 600 B.C. They were:



• Dug Out – cutting away the interior of a large piece of wood, such as a tree trunk like in a canoe
• Carving or Shaping – using an adze to shape large, cut timbers to the form desired, like the Egyptians did as early as 3000 B.C. in building up from the keep large planks attached to the keel and shaped to the curve desired from bow to stern
• Keel and Rib – lay down a keel and either cut with an adze to shape curved ribs, or find tree limbs, etc., already growing in the shape desired
• Cross Hulling – laying the keel, attaching ribs, then inserting cross-beams between to make the hull more sturdy. The Egyptians used this technique from 3000 B.C. onward
• Keel and Hull – laying the keel, then attaching the hull like the Vikings built their long ships, then adding the rib support

Any one of these methods would have been used by men in the constructing of ships prior to and during the time of Nephi. What he meant when he said “neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men” (1 Nephi 18:2, is not known, but evidently not one of these methods.

“7. Maybe they built the ship in sections rather than from the ground up”

If one had a crane and today’s tools, perhaps there would be some likelihood of such an idea, though seldom is such a concept employed. But in 600 B .C. with limited manpower and little opportunity to move heavy pieces of a pre-constructed ship makes little sense. But more importantly, would be far beyond the ability of the small Lehi Colony along the shores of Irreantum in 600 B.C.

In addition, connecting sections of a wooden ship and making them watertight would be a technique not even the most experienced ship builders of today would employ since the process of joining and then caulking, to ensure both water-right capability, and a ship strong enough to weather storms and deep ocean waves would seem foolhardy.

“8. Maybe the Lord showed Nephi a different way of connecting the beams together”

This is one suggestion that seems reasonable enough. Certainly the Lord showed Nephi how to build a ship different from that of man. However, the problem lies not in HOW but in the original questions of WHY.

Which leads us into the second question. “Why did the Lord have Nephi make the ship itself different from ships of their day?”

Again, Meldrum suggests 10 “maybes” that, for the most part, lack knowledge and understanding of ship building.

“1. Maybe the Lord had Nephi begin with a very deep keel to help in 'tacking' against the winds”

Nephi tells us his ship was driven forth BEFORE the wind. When you tack a vessel, you can sail very close to the wind, meaning, INTO the wind, thus the sail is dragging the ship forward, not pushing it forward. With a ship dependent upon being “driven forth before the wind,” there is no need to tack—a sailing technique, by the way, that was not learned and perfected by mariners for at least fifteen hundred years after Lehi’s voyage to the Land of Promise.

If the Lord showed Nephi and his brothers HOW to sail the ship, it is not mentioned. Only that the ship was built differently. Thus, knowing how to tack would not qualify as building a ship different than that of man. Also, a deep keel would be needed primarily to weather the strong winds, storms, and ocean currents, not laid down for the purpose of being able to tack. Even the Arabian dhows could tack by moving their lateen sails about, and did so with a round hull and no deep keel.

“2. Maybe it was wider or longer than other ships for greater stability on the water, and 3. Maybe it was shorter or thinner than other ships for greater speed to the Promised Land”

Every shipbuilder ever mentioned in historic notes, archaeological findings, etc., has shown that a ship sailing beyond rivers and narrow seas (Red Sea, etc.) is best built to a width to length ratio, which was typically about 5:1, that is, one foot wide for every five feet in length. Numerous ships have been found and measured that come close to that ratio. Warships, on the other hand were wider to accommodate larger crews and weight of guns, especially when firing broadsides. In addition, some lumbering cargo ships of the 17th century were about 4:1 ratio; however, the Viking oar-driven long boats were 7:1, and the later clipper ships were around 9:1. The length of a ship did not necessarily make it faster unless a compensating amount of canvas (sail) was added, such as in the clippers, which had up to six masts, and as many as seven courses (levels) upward to the sky sail. Their speed was over 20 knots (22 knots being the record).

The point is, sailing ships of the day included anywhere from the dhows of one mast, up to larger vessels with two masts, though one was the norm. The main point was the design of the ship (i.e., hull length/canvas/speed) to achieve a hull speed of 1:35, which will be discussed in a later post.

(See the next post, “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part V” for responses to more of Meldrum’s “maybes” that fall far short of knowledgeable answers)

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part III

Continuing from the last post regarding two questions that were asked in an earlier blog: “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to build a ship unlike ones built by man? And Why did the Lord tell Nephi to work the timbers unlike that of man?” and Rod Meldrum’s uninformed answers, Meldrum wrote in his series of “maybes” of possible reasons:

“2. Maybe the timbers being used were harder or softer, or stronger or weaker than that available in the Phoenician shipyards”

First of all, whatever wood Nephi was directed to use by the Lord would have been found in the area of present day Salalah in Oman, approximately 2200 miles from Phoenician forests (about 3000 miles by sea).

Secondly, no matter the softness or hardness of the wood, woodworking techniques for shipbuilding followed the same methods in that period—working with the saw to cut the wood, with the adz to shape the wood, and with chisels and bow drills for intricate detail.

Thirdly, Phoenicia was a maritime people living along the northern coast of present-day Lebanon, north of Israel, and were well known in Greece and Rome and throughout the Mediterranean Sea, but traded mostly with the northern lands of the Mediterranean from around 1550 B.C. They did not move further south than Tyre (some claim to Acre and Dor, all north of Meggido and about 100 miles north of Jerusalem), and were well known northward, including Sarepta and Sidon, and northward to Byblos and Tripoli—8 city-states where their shipbuilding would have taken place. They would have been relatively unknown to the south atop the mountains in the Jerusalem area, and by 600 B.C., their power and influence was on the decline, ending around 300 B.C.

By contrast, According to anthropologist Cheryl Ward of Coastal Carolina University, Egyptian seafaring ships had traveled to Byblos to bring back “cedars of Lebanon” as early as the third millennium B.C. They were still sailing the Red Sea around 600 B.C. when Lehi traveled there.

“3. Maybe the Lord had them use a special kind of joining that would make the ship more water-tight”

Another ridiculous “maybe” since all ships from the beginning of time used some type of caulking to make their constructions water tight. Even Noah, in his Ark used pitch to make sure his boat was water-tight (Genesis 6:14).

As anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of ship building knows, caulking of planked ships and boats required caulking, whether a pitch or tar type, wax, or a cotton filament driven between the planks, caulking was essential to keep any boat or ship afloat in any water environment, whether stream, river, lake, sea, or deep ocean.

When a major project of rebuilding the 5,000 year old Pharoah’s ship was undertaken with mortise and tenon plank construction, the ship leaked like a sieve until a cotton fabric caulking was hammered between the plank joints. Even the most precise engineered joining of planks, soaked and expanded in water, will leak unless a caulking is used.

“4. Maybe they needed to work the timbers in place and then bring the finished timbers down to the beach (assuming the timbers were a distance away)”
The ancient Egyptian ships were built at Koptos along the Nile River, were disassembled and carried by camel 90 miles to Saww along the shores of the Red Sea, where they were then reassembled over a thousand years before Lehi left Jerusalem. Stated differently, more than a thousand years before Nephi built his ship “unlike those of men,” ships were being built along river banks, on sea coasts, and inland to be hauled to the rivers and sea to be reassembled. Such a suggestion by Meldrum strikes at the heart of the ignorance of the individual making such a suggestion.

“5. Maybe the ribs were made differently from those of the Phoenicians”

As stated earlier, however the Phoenicians constructed their ships simply would not have been known to farmers living inland and atop the mountains at Jerusalem in 600 B.C. However the Lord taught Nephi to construct his ship, it would be highly unlikely that Nephi would know it was different from the manner in which the Phoenicians built their ships over the previous one thousand years.

(See the next post, “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part IV” for responses to more of Meldrum’s “maybes” that fall far short of knowledgeable answers)

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part II

Continuing from the last post regarding two questions that were asked in an earlier blog: “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to build a ship unlike ones built by man? And Why did the Lord tell Nephi to work the timbers unlike that of man?” and Rod Meldrum’s uninformed answers, Meldrum wrote in his series of “maybes” of possible reasons:

“1. Nephi may have lacked certain tools required to work the timbers in a particular manner”

It is interesting to even suggest that Nephi would have lacked the tools necessary to build his ship like that of other men of his time. First, the tools available in 600 B.C. were limited to begin with, consisting of the adz, saw, chisel, axe and bow drill. These were not difficult tools to make, as long as proper ores (iron) and wood for handles was available. In fact, for more than two thousand years along the Red Sea area, the adz was the tool of choice and used in unique and very proficient manner to shape wood for the building of boats.

According to Hartenberg and McGeough, regarding Neolithic Hand Tools, identities of the ax, adz, chisel and saw were clearly established more than 4,000 years ago. The Bronze Age of tools and implements began about 3000 BC. In the course of the following 2,000 years the much more abundant iron supplanted bronze for tools, but bronze continued to be used in the arts. By 1000 B.C., 400 years before Lehi left Jerusalem, iron was readily used for tools and other implements.

An “adze” was an ax-like tool with a curved blade at right angles to the handle, which was used for smoothing or carving rough-cut wood for ship building anciently. It was being used in Egypt for building ships that sailed the Red Sea as early as the Old Kingdom (3rd millennium BC) onward. Originally the blade was made of stone, but in the Predynastic Period (3100 BC) copper adzes had replaced those made of flint. Examples of metal adzes can be found in the Petrie Museum in London, one of the greatest collections of Egyptian and Sudanese archaeology in the world.

Axe – As early as 4000 to 3500 B.C., metal was used to make axes

Chisels – As early as 2345 – 2181 B.C. metal chisels made of iron were being used in Egypt (according to Herman Junker)

Saws – Earliest saws were made of copper in the Early Dynastifc Period, 3,000-2,800 B.C.

Bow drill – appears in Mehrgarh between the 4th and 5th millennium B.C., and also in the Indus Valley and soon after in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt.

Mortise and tenon joining of wood was used in Egypt along the Red Sea as early as 1500 B.C.

The question Meldrum obliquely poses is, did Nephi have certain tools required to work the timbers in a particular manner? The answer lies in the scriptural account as Nephi wrote:

“And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters. And I said: Lord, whither shall I go that I may find ore to molten, that I may make tools to construct the ship after the manner which thou hast shown unto me? And it came to pass that the Lord told me whither I should go to find ore, that I might make tools. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make a bellows wherewith to blow the fire, of the skins of beasts; and after I had made a bellows, that I might have wherewith to blow the fire, I did smite two stones together that I might make fire” (1 Nephi 17:8-11).

Obviously, Nephi knew of the tools available in his day, and promptly asked the Lord to show him where he could find ore to shape the tools to built the ship. Consequently, Meldrum’s “maybe” about not having the proper tool is without merit and disingenuous from the start.

(See the next post, “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part III” for responses to more of Meldrum’s “maybes” that seem little more than a smoke-screen—certainly not ones a person with knowledge of the period and of the scriptures would suggest)

When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part I

Two questions were asked in an earlier blog: “Why did the Lord tell Nephi to build a ship unlike ones built by man? And Why did the Lord tell Nephi to work the timbers unlike that of man?” A friend took those questions and sent them to Rod Meldrum for an answer. Meldrum who has written extensively about the Land of Promise location in the eastern U.S., responded with a lengthy, but meaningless response.

This all has to do with Nephi writing: “And it came to pass that they did worship the Lord, and did go forth with me; and we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the ship. Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men” (1 Nephi 18:1-2).

The questions posed in the earlier blog and submitted to Meldrum had to do with this scripture.

Rod Meldrum answered: “When it comes to the 'why' there are dozens of potential reasons. The problem is that we then move from things that are known to things speculative, which I try to avoid except when it can be quite clearly indicated that this is the actual reason based on other information.”

That is an interesting answer, when Meldrum adamantly tells us that the city of Zarahemla in Iowa, as named by Joseph Smith and later by the Lord [D&C 125], is the same location of the city of Zarahemla found in the Book of Mormon.

Let us take a look at that Section in the Doctrine and Covenants:

“What is the will of the Lord concerning the saints in the Territory of Iowa. Verily, thus saith the Lord, I say unto you, if those who call themselves by my name and are essaying to be my saints, if they will do my will and keep my commandments concerning them, let them gather themselves together unto the places which I shall appoint unto them by my servant Joseph, and build up cities unto my name, that they may be prepared for that which is in store for a time to come. 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. And let all those who come from the east, and the west, and the north, and the south, that have desires to dwell therein, take up their inheritance in the same, as well as in the city of Nashville, or in the city of Nauvoo, and in all the Stakes which I have appointed, saith the Lord” (D&C 125: 1-4).

Now that is quite a leap from what is known, to speculation, on Meldrum’s part. Zarahemla in Iowa is not suggested by Joseph Smith or the Lord in this revelation that it was the location of the original Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon, or has anything to do with the Book of Mormon or the Land of Promise. Yet, contrary to what he says, Meldrum has taken this leap from a scripture to a conclusion without any evidence or corroboration whatsoever. It appears that Meldrum speculates when it suits him best and ignores even a clear understandable conclusion when it does not.

With his response, Meldrum writes 8 “maybes” regarding the first question and 10 “maybes” regarding the second question, but all fall far short of any explanation worthy of the scriptural reference and the purpose or reason Nephi would have included it in his limited narrative.

After all, Nephi tells us “Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred” (1 Nephi 19:6). Hmmm. Sacred (dedicated to a religious purpose; consecrated; entitled to veneration or religious respect). One might wonder why we would ignore or consider a full and lengthy discussion by Nephi about his building a ship that the Lord instructed him on is not worthy of significant and understandable discussion.

Concluding his response, Meldrum wrote: “Anyway I think you can see that the possibilities are nearly endless if one wants to get into the minutia.”

One might also wonder, given the above scripture where Nephi tells us the importance of what he chose to write, that any sincere historian would consider anything Nephi wrote as minutia. Evidently Muldrum wants to choose what is important in Nephi’s writings and what is not.

Meldrum also wrote: “So to answer your question of 'why'... my answer is I don't think we have any real idea why, but we do know that he built a wooden sailing ship. That we can rely upon without speculation. I really can't feel good about speculation why the Lord had Nephi build the ship differently, nor do I want to speculate about how it may have been built differently.”

Of course the question posed was never “how,” but “why.” In addition, one might also wonder why Nephi chose to write about his ship and how it was constructed unless it was a sacred issue and, obviously then, one we should understand.

Finally, Meldrum concluded, “It is fun, occasionally to speculate, but too often once a speculation is made, folks tend to forget the fact that it was only that...a speculation, and begin treating it like something more.”

It would seem that what Nephi chose to write is not a humorous or fun exercise to speculate upon, but a serious and worthwhile effort to understand what Nephi’s writing tell us—to ponder for understanding, to search out answers and to meditate upon the scriptural meaning and intent.

(See the next post: “When is Reason Called Speculation? Responding to Rod Meldrum’s Answer – Part II” for a response to Meldrum’s “maybes” and how worthless a point he makes with them)

Zarahemla in Iowa? Part IV

Continuing with Eric Checketts comment on an earlier blog about present-day Zarahemla in Iowa, the following covers another of his points of disagreement:

He wrote further: “It does actually matter where the Book of Mormon took place.”

I whole heardedly agree! As has been stated in numerous blogs on this site over the years, I believe it is essential to further understand the circumstances surrounding the Nephites and their society and wars when one knows and understands where the Land of Promise was located. However, that does not mean that any site is evidence of the Book of Mormon just because someone says it is.

On this subject, Meldrum claims the heartland area is the Land of Promise. His map shown below really violates most of the description in the Book of Mormon written by Mormon and the other prophets.
Even a cursory glance shows that 1) the Land of Bountiful is to the east of the Land of Zarahemla, 2) the Land of Nephi is south of the Land of Bountiful, but not south of the Land of Zarahemla, 3) there are no separate Lamanite Lands to the east, and 4) the Land of Desolation is not north of the Land of Zarahemla—all this in opposition to the scriptural account. In addition, the seas of his map do not make any sense. Why would the Nephites call a sea the Sea SOUTH when it is to the EAST of where they were in the Land Southward? And the Sea EAST is to the NORTH of the Land of Bountiful? Since the Nephites obviously named their seas as directional bodies of water, does Meldrum's placement of seas make any sense?

A researcher/historian cannot be taken seriously who violates such simple understandings and descriptions of the land as outlined by Mormon in Alma 22:27-33, as well as elsewhere. A little deeper knowledge of the geography would show that Meldrum has his four seas surrounding the Land of Desolation, but Mormon tells us the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water except for the narrow neck of land.

Any number of additional errors could be pointed out in Meldrum’s claims, but so many have already been shown that they should be sufficient for the honest researcher and seeker after truth.

Eric Checketts’ last disagreement and point is: “But my biggest beef with your post here is that you speak with a tone that suggests a total authority on the subject, while using one single argument - a very weak argument - that actually strengthens the opposite view. And finally, you use this weak argument to attack the character of a man who appears to be doing nothing less than searching for truth and right.”

To repeat myself, the one article out of the thousands that have been posted on this website covered the material Checketts read. There were other articles at the time covering other points. I have tried to reestablish those points in these five articles. The point being, the argument against Meldrum’s viewpoint is not based upon a single issue, as would have been apparent had the man read more than one brief article which, by intent, was about only one of Meldrum’s statements. But as has been pointed out in these current articles, each of Meldrum’s points will not hold water when compared with accurate understanding of the issues he raises.

In addition, regarding a tone that suggests a total authority on the subject, let me submit just three of scores of comments Meldrum has made about himself and his work:

1) He repeatedly refers to his theory as having “proved” prophetic status; 2) his theory is “irrefutable,” and 3) his theory is an “unshakable” foundation upon which all truth is based.

If I sound totally authoritative, it is because of my zeal for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon—every word, and that no modern-day Apostle or Prophet is going to make any statement contrary to what is written there. The Book of Mormon has been translated accurately, and is “the most perfect book” on the subject. I dislike people of letters and other status that continually try to say the Book of Mormon says something it does not, or means something not clearly stated. Far too many people today have written books, given lectures, made videos, claimed theories, etc., etc., etc., that are contrary to the simple language of the Book of Mormon that Nephi so dearly loved.

When Checketts says, “to attack the character of a man who appears to be doing nothing less than searching for truth and right,” he misses the point. I am not attacking Meldrum. I do not even know the man. I am attacking the inaccuracy of his work and claims about the location of the Book of Mormon Land of Promise and more specifically, the location of the Nephite city of Zarahemla being in Iowa. His claim is erroneous, does not meet scriptural references and descriptions, and is totally misleading.

Zarahemla in Iowa? Part IV

Continuing with Eric Checketts comment on an earlier blog about present-day Zarahemla in Iowa, the following covers another of his points of disagreement:

He wrote further: “So, the way I see it, the fact that Joseph named the town 'Zarahemla' and then the Lord gave His own nod of approval for the name, only strengthens the argument that ancient Zarahemla was located in what is modern Iowa.”

It seems that Mr. Checketts would be better off if he would question Meldrum’s idea and placement of the Nephite city of Zarahemla in Iowa, than defend it since there is very little that recommends an Iowa setting. Let’s take these items one at a time:

Zarahemla was the Nephite capitol city, was first built by the Mulekites (People of Zarahemla) prior to Mosiah finding them earlier than 130 B.C. No doubt the increase Nephite population added to the size of the city and its method of construction over the next 600 years. The city was partially destroyed by fire around 33 A.D., but was rebuilt during the period of great singular achievement of the Nephites after the advent of the Savior.

Mormon, who was born in the Land Northward around 310 A.D., was taken to Zarahemla when he was about eleven years of age. While in the capitol area, Mormon was appointed the leader of the Nephite armies in 327 A.D., and there commenced a great war between the Nephites and the Lamanites and the Nephites began their retreat toward the north countries. The city of Zarahemla was evidently vacated by the Nephites around 327-328 A.D. This is the last written about the city of Zarahemla which, it is assumed, fell into the hands of the Lamanites who eventually controlled all of the Land Southward.
This city of vast size and dimensions, the capitol of the Nephite nation numbering in the millions, was likely destroyed by the Lamanites, or just allowed to fall into disrepair and ruin somewhere between 350 and 400 A.D. From that time until 1780 A.D., when the area of Montrose, Iowa, was first settled—a period of just over 1400 years—the area of southern Iowa is believed to have changed very little.

Today, Iowa is in the center of the area referred to as the Midwest by the U.S. Census Bureau. It was part of the Sauk Indian Nation from the 1780s onward, and specifically the location of the Cut Nose Village. The first white man to settle there was a French Canadian in 1799, and the area came into the possession of the United States through the Louisiana Purchase of 1810. The first home was built there in 1832, the U.S. military built a fort there in 1834 for three companies of Dragoons, Mormons moved into the area in 1839, and the Mormon Trail was established there in 1847. Montrose was established as a town in 1854, and incorporated in 1857. Montrose was an important river town during the 1850-1870s, a port of Mississippi River boats, bringing numerous immigrants to the area, and the home of many factories.

Now if the area of the Book of Mormon Zarahemla was in this location, on the northern edge of present-day Montrose as Meldrum claims, it seems unlikely its location and ruins would not have been discovered. If not by the Indians, locals, and settlers, certainly by the Mormons who understood the significance of the term Zarahemla, and Section 125 of the Doctrine and Covenants, given in 1841.

Yet, to date, despite Meldrum’s book and studies, no evidence of the ancient city of Zarahemla has ever been found on the basically undisturbed landscape over the past 1400 years since the Nephites abandoned their city.

Where, in fact, is the huge, tall wall upon which Samuel the Lamanite stood, as depicted in this image. And where is the stone structures of Zarahemla? In Central America, Teothuacan, believed to have been built in 100 B.C., and the tower base in Sacsahuaman in Peru, believed to have been built around 500 B.C., and also in South America, at Tihuaunacu along the Peru Bolivian border, believed to have been built around 300 B.C., and the Parthenon in ancient Greece, built around 440 B.C., are not only still standing today in one form or another of their original splendor, but have weathered the mighty winds, storms, and ruination of the ages. Again, one can only ask, where are the ruins of the great Nephite nation and the city of Zarahemla, claimed to have existed in southeast Iowa, built around the same time?

As an example, the upper right image is that of a tower base in Peru, above Cusco, in the ancient ruined city of Sacsahuaman. According to a drawing made by the Spanish conquerors when they arrived, this base had a tall tower upon it that overlooked the valley below. The tower was described as being about seven stories high with a flat top and an overhead roof, open around for viewing—obviously for an ancient lookout since the view covered all entrances into the valley below. However, the Spanish destroyed the tower, but today, five hundred years after the Spanish destruction, and about 1500 years after its construction, the site is still obvious to any observer, covering several acres. Surely, some ruins of Zarahemla would be visible in the area of Montrose, Iowa, if that were the site of the ancient Nephite capitol.

But, alas, no ruins exist in Meldrum's area of this 1830s Zarahemla.

(See the next post, Zarahemla, Iowa? Part V, for more on Eric Checketts article disagreeing with an earlier blog about Zarahemla, Iowa, not being the location of the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon)

Zarahemla in Iowa? Part III

Continuing with Eric Checketts comment on an earlier blog about present-day Zarahemla in Iowa, the following covers another of his points of disagreement:

He wrote further: “So Joseph Smith had already instructed the Saints to call the town 'Zarahemla' before the Lord instructed as much in D&C 125, so what? That's the entirety of your argument?”

This was not the crux or entirety of the argument against Zarahemla not being in Iowa, or even the U.S., but simply a brief comment to address Rod Meldrum’s position that because the Lord named this area Zarahemla across from Nauvoo in D&C 125, it did not mean that it was the location for the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon. The fact that Joseph had considered the name of Zarahemla two years prior to the Lord telling him to name the area that, should suggest that the Lord was not revealing this area as the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon. Very likely, the Lord was simply acknowledging Joseph’s previous decision and having him go ahead with the naming and development of the area. After all, the Church had purchased a lot of land in Iowa, and only a small area across the river in Illinois.

On the other hand, there is no indication, suggestion, or hint that this area to be named Zarahemla was the site of the Book of Mormon. Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith gave any indication that this area was the location of the Book of Mormon Zarahemla. Not a hint, not a clue, not a comment.

Since neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith made such a connection, it seems odd that an historian would make such a giant leap in his thinking and claim this area of Montrose (Zarahemla), Iowa, was the site of the Book of Mormon Zarahemla, is very dubious—especially when one tries to correlate any of the other descriptions of the entire area of the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla, including the City of Nephi and the City of Zarahemla, to this area in the Iowa-Illinois area.

Flat Ground South of Montrose: Left: between Keouk and Warsaw; Right: further south toward Meyer

The images above show the extremely flat topography of the land south of the area of Montrose-Zarahemla. Unlike the scriptural account, outlining the higher level and mountainous region to the south of the Book of Mormon Zarahemla, this area in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri is extremely flat, with no headwaters of the River Sidon available for comparison. Having driven through this area several times, the land is as flat as a pancake—you can see in any direction for miles and miles, without a hill in sight.

As a result, we can see that around Montrose-Zarahemla in Iowa: 1) there are no ruins to equate to the major Nephite capital of Zarahemla; 2) the river to the east of this area (Mississippi) is far too wide and too deep to allow an army to ford anywhere around there; 3) the land to the south of this area is flat, with no hills, let alone mountains; and 4) there are no headwaters of the river to the east of this area like the River Sidon. There are other disqualifiers, but these four should answer any comment about the area of Montrose, Iowa, across from Nauvoo, Illinois, as being the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon. The idea is absolutely ludicrous, and no matter how knowledgeable, how astute, how sincere someone might be in placing the Nephite capitol city of Zarahemla in this area is beyond imagination.

However, Eric Checketts goes on in his criticism by stating: “Your comments seem directed at the work of Rod Meldrum, so you must be at least vaguely familiar with his research. Meldrum often points to the fact that JOSEPH KNEW about the Nephites and the Lamanites, and that he was intimately acquainted with their culture, customs, and their LOCATION.”

Actually, Joseph had a great knowledge of the Nephites long before he obtained the plates. Moroni schooled him so effectively, Joseph held his family spellbound with the stories, descriptions, and culture of the Nephites in the Smith family home evenings according to his mother, Lucy Mack Smith. Notwithstanding this, there is absolutely no record anywhere of Joseph ever saying where the Nephite capitol was located, or even where the Land of Promise was located. In all the discussions recorded in the journals of associates of the Prophet, there is not a SINGLE comment he made to any of them about the location of the Book of Mormon sites, especially that of Zarahemla.

(See the next post, Zarahemla, Iowa? Part IV, for more on Eric Checketts article disagreeing with an earlier blog about Zarahemla, Iowa, not being the location of the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon)

Zarahemla in Iowa? Part II

Continuing with Eric Checketts comment on an earlier blog about present-day Zarahemla in Iowa, the following covers his points of disagreement:

He wrote in part: “Huh? I'm not sure that you've even put a dent in the assertion that Zarahemla was anciently located across the river from what is now Nauvoo.”
I began answering that in the last post, in pointing out that no early development in the Montrose-Zarahemla area has ever been found in Iowa to suggest a city the size of ancient Zarahemla. In addition, the following points out the differences in the River Sidon and the Mississippi River.

In Alma, we learn that while the Nephite army was following the Amlicites, “in the land of Minon above the land of Zarahemla, in the course [line or direction] of the land of Nephi, we saw a numerous host of the Lamanites,” whom the Amlicites joined (Alma 2:24). Fearful that the Lamanites would reach Zarahemla before them, the Nephite army “took their tents and departed out of the valley of Gideon toward their city, which was the city of Zarahemla” (Alma 2:26).

As the army and the people of the land fleeing before the Lamanite-Amlicite army crossed the River Sidon from east to west (Alma 2:27), a battle took place in which the Nephites were strengthened by the Lord (Alma 2:28) and a great battle took place as they were crossing the River Sidon (Alma 2:34). When all had crossed over the River Sidon and onto the west bank, the Lamanites and Amlicites, being in number so numerous that they could not be numbered began to flee (Alma 2:35) to the Wilderness of Hermounts, to the north and west of Zarahemla and to the west of the River Sidon.
Now, since so many thousands of both armies had crossed over the river near Zarahemla, one might want to consider the size of that river and whether or not an army of men on foot could have waded across.

The Mississippi River around Zarahemla, Iowa, is about a mile and a half wide, is swiftly flowing and measures at nine-foot in depth. It would be very difficult for an army on foot to have forded this area since the water would be about three feet deep over an average man’s head. To consider the river might have been lower in 87 B.C. is without merit, since one might say it could have been deeper as well—we simply have no data on the river two thousand years ago, and would probably say it was deeper before man began to damn it, drain from it, create locks in it, etc., for the benefit of shipping.

As has been pointed out in numerous earlier blogs, the Sidon River flowed south to north; however, the Mississippi obviously flows north to south.

The Mississippi River flows directly past present day Zarahemla, with the actual settlement directly on the bank of the river; however, there is no indication in the scriptural record that Zarahemla was directly on the banks of the Sidon River, or even very close, and it might even be considered some distance away since when the Lamanite army reached the west bank (the side on which Zarahemla was located) they fled to the northwest toward the wilderness of Hermounts. However, we only know that the Sidon River was to the east of the city of Zarahemla.

Another, most important point about the location of the city of Zarahemla, is that it was located down from the Land of Nephi, and that the Sidon River had its head or headwaters in those mountains south of Zarahemla, and that an obvious strip of wilderness separated the two lands creating a natural barrier. The problem with Zarahemla, Iowa, there is no such topography to the south of that area, either in Iowa, Missouri or Illinois. The area is basically rich farmland that was sought by both Iowa and Missouri and resulted in the so-called “Honey War” and eventually caused the United States Supreme Court to decide the exact boundary of the two states, and eventually referred to as the Missouri Compromise.

To the south of this area is the Des Moines River, and south of that is Clark County, a basically flat land covering approximately 512 square miles along the western shore of the Mississippi River.

In no way does any of this topography even come close to Mormon’s description and the narrative of the Book of Mormon describing Zarahemla and the land to the south.

(See the next post, Zarahemla, Iowa? Part III, for more on Eric Checketts article disagreeing with an earlier blog about Zarahemla, Iowa, not being the location of the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon)

Zarahemla in Iowa? Part I

I have been traveling much of the past year and a half, most of which has been in the east and through the areas of the early Church development and historical sites. Just returning from my last trip this week, I decided to do a global search on this blog site to see if I had missed anything. To my surprise, I found a note written by Eric Checketts clear back in June of 2010, which I find I did not answer regarding his objection to my article about present day Zarahemla, across the Mississippi from Nauvoo, Illinois, was not the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon.

So, asking forgiveness for such a delay and not knowing it was completely missed in the blog, I would like to answer it now. First, his note is shown below in total:

“Huh? I'm not sure that you've even put a dent in the assertion that Zarahemla was anciently located across the river from what is now Nauvoo. So Joseph Smith had already instructed the Saints to call the town 'Zarahemla' before the Lord instructed as much in D&C 125, so what? That's the entirety of your argument? Your comments seem directed at the work of Rod Meldrum, so you must be at least vaguely familiar with his research. Meldrum often points to the fact that JOSEPH KNEW about the Nephites and the Lamanites, and that he was intimately acquainted with their culture, customs, and their LOCATION. So, the way I see it, the fact that Joseph named the town 'Zarahemla' and then the Lord gave His own nod of approval for the name, only strengthens the argument that ancient Zarahemla was located in what is modern Iowa. It does actually matter where the Book of Mormon took place. But my biggest beef with your post here is that you speak with a tone that suggests total authority on the subject, while using one single argument - a very weak argument - that actually strengthens the opposite view. And finally, you use this weak argument to attack the character of a man who appears to be doing nothing less than searching for truth and right.”

It will probably be easiest to answer this item by item:

1. While it is true that an assertion was made by Mr. Meldrum that the ancient city of Zarahemla was located across the river from Nauvoo, it should be noted that nothing in the area suggests a huge city of antiquity. There are no remains in the area to equate in any way to the early Nephite capital which lasted from around 200 B.C. to 400 A.D. under Nephite control, and probably another 300 to 400 years before that under Mulekite control. So we are looking at a city some 900 to 1000 years old. This is the same city where Samuel the Lamanite stood upon the high ramparts while those below tried to shoot him with arrows, suggesting an outer wall of stone several feet high and certainly thick enough at the top for a man to stand. Such walls do not deteriorate and disappear. Nor should we think that a city with a stone wall about it would not have had stone buildings within. And as any archaeologist could tell you, huge stone walls and buildings made of stone anciently do not disappear—remnants of such would not only in existence today, but their very noticeable purpose would be clearly understood.

It should also be noted that the area around Montrose, Iowa, where Zarahemla of Joseph Smith’s time was located, was first settled in the 1780s by Quashquame, the Sauk Indian chief who established villages on both sides of the Mississippi River (present day Montrose and Nauvoo). It is interesting that in all of the contacts with Quashquame and his Sauk Indians, no mention is made of any time of ancient settlement there, no mention of the ruins of walls, buildings, etc., even though Quashquame was an intelligent man who, at one time, signed the treaty of 1804 as the leader of the delegation to St Louis that ceded lands in western Illinois and northeast Missouri to the U.S.

In addition, though Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff and Erastus Snow lived in this Montrose area only fifty some years after it was first settled by the Sauk, no mention in any of their writings shows any indication they found any ruins of walls and buildings representing a city the size and scope of ancient Book of Mormon Zarahemla.
In 1837, when Fort Des Moinse (#1) was built outside Montrose, there was no use of, or discovery of, rock or stone ruins to help build the fort. In fact, prior to 1780, the area of Montrose and Zarahemla was an open field showing no previous occupancy.

The area itself, part of where the Mississippi Alluvial Plain and the Southern Iowa Drift Plain meet, which is essentially the northward continuation of the fluvial sediments of the Mississippi River Delta along the river area, and the low-rolling hills covering most of southern Iowa. Two thousand years ago, this area of today’s Montrose and Zarahemla were in the wetlands stretching as far north as present day Fort Madison. This area also has the heaviest rainfall in the state, averaging 30-inches annually, and is considered a Pleistocene glacial landscape.

Archeology in the State of Iowa has not uncovered any major settlement areas, such as cities of great size, nor anything more than the type of Indian cultures found there when the Europeans first came into the area. As late as 3,000 years ago (1000 B.C.), during the Late Archaeic period, American Indians in Iowa began utilizing domesticated plants, and much later an increased dependence on agriculture. Not until around 900 A.D. did the culture in Iowa develop dependence on maize (corn) and begin to develop “nucleated” settlements; however, not until after the Europeans settled in the area did the earlier cultures develop into any semblance of sophisticated social complexes.

This can hardly be considered the background of the 1000-year history of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon.

(See the next post, Zarahemla, Iowa? Part II, for more of the rationale behind dismissing Zarahemla in Iowa from being the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon)

How Do We Read the Book of Mormon Geography? – Part III

According to Lynn and David Rosenvall, in placing The River Sidon, wrote:

“In Baja California, and especially in the central area of the peninsula, the main source of water is springs, not the typical system of tributaries with rivers and lakes, found in more humid lands. These springs flow directly into natural fountains or heads. In common with Al Awali (the Sidon River) of Lebanon and the River Jordan of Israel, the Rio San Ignacio has a striking and beautiful, elongated lagoon or fountain at its head.” Alma 22:27.

It is interesting they would admit that in “Baja California the main source of water is springs.” Do they not understand Mormon’s description of the Land of Many Waters?

“And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites” (Mormon 6:4).

Waters – The ocean, a sea, a lake, a river, any great collection of water
Rivers – A large stream of water flowing in a channel on land toward the ocean, a lake, or another river
Fountains – A spring or source of water; the head or source of a river

Understanding that when three different words are used in a single sentence like this, they are referring to different items. In this case, it is not only springs being referred to here, but also large bodies of water (waters) and flowing rivers. Thus, it must be understood that in the Land Northward, in the area to which Mormon marched his Nephite armies, was a land with so much water, from so many sources, he called it the Land of Many Waters.

Not only is there no such natural water source in all of Baja California, Rosenvall even admits that the sources of water are springs, which would indicate water spouting forth from subterranean sources. But “waters” and “rivers,” as well as “fountains (springs),” indicate other natural water sources, such as water flowing from rains and snows atop high mountains, lakes and other pooled and flowing water sources.

In the same sentence above, Rosenvall concluded that the River Sidon was: “Directly fed by several springs, the water in this narrow lagoon runs from east to west, the same direction mentioned in Mormon’s account, “by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west,” faithfully matching this directional description (Alma 22:27).”

The sad thing about people who quote scripture is that they try to find something that agrees with their belief or model, then try to squeeze it into that support in a haphazard manner. First of all, the River Sideon is never mentioned as running from east to west, or any pooling of water at its head, as Rosenvall wants us to believe.

Alma 22:27 states: “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.”

Now, let’s take a look at what runs east and west:

“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.”

This narrow strip of wilderness “RAN FROM THE SEA EAST EVEN TO THE SEA WEST.”

There is no mention, indication, or reference to the River Sidon running from east to west, only that the narrow strip of wilderness ran east to west, along past the head of the River Sidon.

How Do We Read the Book of Mormon Geography? – Part II

According to Lynn and David Rosenvall, in placing The River Sidon, wrote:

“Located to the north of the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 22:30–31). The land of Nephi is positioned to the south of the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 22:28, 33–34). Mormon’s description leaves little question as to the river Sidon’s relative location within the center of the north south trending Book of Mormon lands. And this pivotal location accurately matches the position of the only river of significance within central Baja California—the Rio San Ignacio.”

The yellow arrows were added to Rosenvall’s map to point out the error of the map—the narrow strip of wilderness as indicated in the scripture runs east and west, not north and south as the map shows. According to Alma 22:27 the Land of Nephi:

“…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…”

In addition, this map shows that (1) is the location of the River Sidon, which flows mostly east and west on their map, and (2) is the location of their City of Zarahemla, which is basically to the north of their Sidon River—not the west of the river as the scriptures indicate in several places. According to another map, showing the head of the river Sidon and where it flows past Zarahemla, it, too, shows that Zarahemla is on the north of the river.

Then, when we look at the overall concept, Rosenvall has his River Sidon flowing from the north to the south (actually, to be accurate, it is from the northeast to the southwest. But the point is, he has his River Sidon flowing in the opposite direction of the scriptural account.

To try and justify his River Sidon’s course that does not match the scriptural text, and to confuse the issue, Rosenvall claims: “The Book of Mormon does not mention that the river Sidon has headwaters; it states in several places that it has a head, “the head of the river Sidon.” In our discussion of the features of the river Sidon, we explain the difference between a “head” of a river as its source and the “headwaters” of a river as a source.”

Rosenvall uses the contemporary Oxford American Dictionary for his definitions, but as has been pointed out in numerous posts here, a current dictionary of current words and meanings has no value in understanding the words Joseph Smith knew and used in 1829 in translating the plates. Consequently, the only dictionary of any value is the 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” by Noah Webster.

Even so, the modern terminology of “head” and “headwaters” seem quite clear. From the 14th century onward, the term “head” meant the “source of a river or stream” and sometimes used in the form “fountainhead” which means the “fountain or spring that is the head of a stream.” The contemporary definition of “head of a river” in all dictionaries used today, is defined as “the source or headwaters of a river or stream is the place from which the water in the river or stream originates.” The United States Geological Survey (USGS) states that a river's "length may be considered to be the distance from the mouth to the most distant headwater source (irrespective of stream name), or from the mouth to the headwaters of the stream commonly identified as the source stream."

Thus, the “head of a river” or the “headwaters of a river” is defined as the furthest point from the mouth, no matter what branch of the main river is considered. The Army Corps of Engineers establishes the point where headwaters begin as that point on the stream where a flow of five cubic feet per second is equaled or exceeded 50% of the time. The Oxford dictionary defines it as “Headwaters are the source of a river or stream, the literal waters which feed the river” and “a tributary stream of a river close to or forming part of its source: these paths follow rivers right up into their headwaters.”

As stated in an earlier post, the 1828 definition of the language known to Joseph Smith was: “the principal source of a stream” and “the part most remote from the mouth or opening into the sea.”

In addition, Rosenvall makes a point that the word “headwaters” does not appear in the Book of Mormon. The reason for this might be that in 1828, according to the best known American dictionary of the day, the word “headwaters” does not even appear, suggesting that the word was not in use at that time. However, as stated above, the word “head” of a stream or river, was in use since the 14th century, and was the term known to Joseph Smith in 1829.

Thus we might conclude that the word “head of the river Sidon” was the correct word for Joseph Smith to use in his language in 1829, and not “headwaters.”

While Rosenvall likes to make some claims that the head of a river is different form the headwaters of a river, the point is that both (even if you want to claim them different) were in the south wilderness. There is never a mention of the Sidon River to the north of Zarahemla, nor beyond the borders to the north in the Wilderness of Hermounts, the location he claims for the headwaters of the Sidon River. Therefore, no play on words is going to change the scriptural record that shows the river Sidon commencing, beginning, having its source, within the narrow strip of wilderness separating the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla, and with the city of Zarahemla to the north of this wilderness, is there any question that the river flowed north?

Thus, with the river Sidon in the south wilderness, which ran from the east sea to the west sea and separated the Land of Nephi (to the south) from the Land of Zarahemla (to the north), as Mormon states (Alma 22:27), and we know that the river Sidon flows through the Land of Zarahemla, which is to the north, it stands to reason then that the river Sidon flowed northward.

How Do We Read the Book of Mormon Geography? – Part I

According to Lynn and David Rosenvall, in placing The River Sidon, wrote in describing the Land Northward:

“The people of Zarahemla (the people of Mulek) initially landed in this northern area and then moved south to a place they called the city and land of Zarahemla.”

It is interesting that someone who claims to research the Book of Mormon and describe for others its locations, directions, lands, etc., can so flagrantly disregard the very text they are quoting. As an example, when Mormon describes the land northward in Alma 22:30 “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,” he was referring to the land northward as it was occupied by an earlier people who had been destroyed, and not describing the history of those who found this earlier people.

Almost every BOM historian wants to claim from this statement that the Mulekites, or people of Zarahemla, landed in the Land Northward and then came southward (Alma 22:31). However, they seem to ignore the very English they are reading. Mormon states:

1. The land description (moving from south to north) came to an area called Desolation
2. This Land of Desolation was so far north that it came to the land where a previous people had dwelt
3. The bones of this previous people were found there
4. These bones had been mentioned before (Mosiah 8:8)
5. These bones had been discovered by those from the city of Lehi-Nephi who had originally came from the City of Zarahemla, and two generations later had been searching for the City of Zarahemla when they found the bones (Mosiah 8:7)
6. The people who had dwelt in this northern land, whose bones had been found by the people of Zarahemla, had first landed there in the location where they had been found.

Somehow lost to all these historians is the fact that Mormon was writing about the land that the Lamanite King controlled, and in so doing, indicated a people who had occupied the land far to the north in a much earlier time, and that it was the location where these earlier people had first landed when they arrived in this northern land.

To verify this, we need only turn to Omni. Amaleki, the last of the Nephite prophets to record on the plates before turning them over to King Benjamin (Omni 1:25), was with Mosiah when he fled the city of Nephi, and they traveled “into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness, until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla” (Omni 1:13).

When they reached that land, they “discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews” (Omni 1:14)

Continuing on with Amaleki’s description of these people they found in Zarahemla, he writes: “Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth” (Omni 1:15-16).

Now, let’s read that again:

“and were brought by the hand of the Lord ACROSS the great waters, INTO the land WHERE Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there FROM THAT TIME FORTH.”

For those who seem to not understand Amaleki’s writing, he is telling us that the Lord led the Mulekites (people of Zarahemla) across the great waters from Jerusalem to the Land of Promise where they landed and had always lived—in the spot where Mosiah found them. Where Mosiah found them! He did not find them in the Land Northward, nor did they move from the area of their first landing. Obviously, then, the Mulekites landed along the coast of the Land Southward and settled in the land, establishing the city that was known as the City of Zarahemla when Mosiah discovered them.

That doesn’t seem too difficult to understand. But misunderstand these two scriptures almost all Book of Mormon historians do! Yet, they feel completely confident to tell us where this place and that place was located in the Land of Promise.

(See next post, How Do We Read the Book of Mormon Geography? – Part II, to see how easily and confidently the Land of Promise is placed in a local that simply does not meet the scriptural record)