Were There Two Sidon Rivers? Part IV—The Funny Part of This Theorist's Claim

The last three posts have dealt with why it is important not to jump at conclusions when trying to prove a point from the Book of Mormon about any geographical point. There are so many possibilities in understanding what is meant by Mormon’s abridgement and what might have been left out since he was abridging a very long record and could only write one-hundredth of what had been compiled.

Yet, continuing with the Theorist who claims that there were two River Sidons, who used an abbreviated example of Alma 8:1, 3 to make his point—however, the funny part of all this is that there is really no mention of crossing the Sidon River to the West as this Theorist implies. He writes: “The River Sidon had two forks which ran along each side of the City of Zarahemla.”  This, he claims, is based on two scriptures—Alma 6:7 for the Eastern Fork, and Alma 8:1, 3 for the Western Fork.

He further  writes: “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” (Alma 6:7), and adds: “And now it came to pass that Alma...returned to his own house at Zarahemla…Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek on the West of the River Sidon (Alma 8:1,3)."

From his writing, which his meaning, one might be misled into thinking that Alma left Zarahemla and crossed to the east and preached in the Valley of Gideon, then returned to Zarahemla, then left Zarahemla and crossed the Sidon River to the West and went to Melek. However, that is not what the scripture says or even implies.

"And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness” (Alma 8:3)."

Note that there is no mention of Alma crossing the River Sidon the second time he left Zarahemla to go preaching.  Note that Verse 3 says:

1) And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Alma departed from thence...

We can assume for the sake of argument that Alma was in the city of Zarahemla when the year began and departed from the city of Zarahemla...

2) and took his journey over into the land of Melek...

Obviously, Alma left the city of Zarahemla and headed toward the Land of Melek...

3) on the west of the river Sidon...

Again, just as obviously, the city of Melek was on the West of the River Sidon...

4) on the west by the borders of the wilderness..

The city of Melek was on the west of the River Sidon by the borders of the wilderness, which was probably the West wilderness.

There is no  mention, reference, or suggestion in this scripture (or in any of those preceding or following) that Alma, after leaving the City of Zarahemla at the commencement of the Tenth Year, crossed the Sidon River on his way to the City of Melek.

That this Theorist  who claims there had to be two River Sidons (one river forking around Zarahemla to the West and the other around Zarahemla to the East) has absolutely no reason to think this, other than his own misunderstanding, misreading, or misleading reference to Alma 8:3. Yet, without really understanding what he is talking about, he goes on to create an entire map of the Land of Promise, specifically that of Zarahemla and the River Sidon, then goes on to claim that the only place where the river forks where Zarahemla had to be was the Buffalo River in the Great Lakes area of his own model.

One more time: “And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness” (Alma 8:3).

There can be no  other interpretation of this statement. Mormon wrote that Alma left “and took his journey over into the land of Melek,” then describes for his future reader that the City of Melek was “on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness” (Alma 8:3).

The problem with these Theorists is they start out trying to prove a point and then try to use scripture to validate what they want it to say. Too bad people just can’t start out with the scripture, and understand what it says and means before going off the deep end with some half-baked theory about the geography of the Land of Promise!

Were There Two Sidon Rivers? Part III—The Use of Thence in the Scriptural Record

Continuing with the Theorist who claims that there were two River Sidons, who used an abbreviated example of Alma 8:1, 3 to make his point; however, when comparing the entire scriptural record of Alma 8:1-3, we find a very different meaning.

In the last post, we discussed the word “thence,” as used by Mormon. Continuing with that concept, the word “thenceforth,” which is archaic today, but was in use during Joseph Smith’s time, was a common saying in early 19^th century, and always followed the word “from,” which might have been the meaning in the saying: “that Alma departed from thence[forth], meaning from that time forward, and took his journey over into the land of Melek..."

As stated in the last post, the word “thence” is not a word used today, but was used in Joseph Smith’s time. Also, keep in mind, that Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Amaleki or other early writers did not use the word “thence.” Mormon does not use the word in his own writing (Book of Mormon, Words of Mormon) nor does Moroni (Book of Moroni). The word “thence” is used mainly in Alma and Helaman and twice in 3 Nephi, which in both cases the Lord is speaking and his meaning is “from there," and once in Ether.

However,  in all Alma and Helaman cases, it means “after that event or after that time.” The word “thenceforth” is used twice in 3 Nephi, again the Lord is speaking, and both times the meaning is “from this time forward.” The same is true in Alma where it is used once with the meaning “from this time forward.” It is used once in Helaman with the meaning of “from that place."

Alma 5:1 -- Now it came to pass that Alma began to deliver the word of God unto the people, first in the land of Zarahemla, and from thence throughout all the land. 

Meaning, after that (after the land of Zarahemla), throughout all the land. 

Alma 8:6 -- So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed thence, and traveled three days' journey on the north of the land of Melek; and he came to a city which was called Ammonihah. 

Meaning: he departed after that (after finishing in Melek), and traveled three days’ journey.

Alma 8:13 -- Now when the people had said this, and withstood all his words, and reviled him, and spit upon him, and caused that he should be cast out of their city, he departed thence and took his journey towards the city which was called Aaron. 

Meaning: he departed after that (after being cast out of the city) and took his journey...

Alma 24:5 -- Now when Ammon and us brethren and all those who had come up with him saw the preparations of the Lamanites to destroy their brethren, they came forth to the land of Midian, and there Ammon met all his brethren; and from thence they came to the land of Ishmael that they might hold a council with Lamoni and also with his brother Anti-Nephi-Lehi, what they should do to defend themselves against the Lamanites. 

Meaning: they came forth after that (after meeting all his brethren) to the land of Midian.

Helaman 5:16 -- And even from one city to another, until they had gone forth among all the people of Nephi who were in the land southward; and from thence into the land of Zarahemla, among the Lamanites. 

Meaning: they departed after that (after going forth among all the people of Nephi) into the land of Zarahemla.

Helaman 5:19-20 --  Therefore they  did speak unto the great astonishment of the Lamanites, to the convincing them, insomuch that there were eight thousand of the Lamanites who were in the land of Zarahemla and round about baptized unto repentance, and were convinced of the wickedness of the traditions of their fathers. And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did proceed from thence to go to the land of Nephi.

Meaning: After that (after converting 8000 Lamanites) they proceeded to the land of Nephi.

3 Nephi 12:25-26 -- Agree with  thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison can ye pay even one senine? Verily, verily, I say unto you, Nay. 

The Lord is speaking and his meaning is: You will not be released from there (prison) until after thou has paid the uttermost senine.

3 Nephi 20:41 --  Then shall a cry go forth: Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch not that which is unclean; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.

Again the Lord is speaking and his meaning: Go ye out from (there).

Ether 9:3 -- And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family.

Meaning: came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and after that they went eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom. 

The point is, that the word “thence” cannot in Alma 8:1-3 suggest that right after being in Zarahemla, Alma departed for Melek. Keep in mind that the significance of the statement is to show that the ninth year had ended. We do not know how long the event in Alma 8:1 was separated from the event in Alma 8:3, which heralded in the beginning of the tenth year. Nor do we know if Alma was still in Zarahemla when the tenth year began. Remembering that Mormon is abridging the record of Alma, we do not know if other things took place of lesser significance, taking Alma away from Zarahemla, before he went on another missionary call to preach in the land of Melek, and then to Ammonihah.

To make such a claim on so many unknown factors is not wise when it comes to trying to understand such topography, especially when dealing with a condition (two River Sidons) not mentioned elsewhere or support in any other scripture. Even other factors could be involved, such as the River Sidon not being a river that runs on a continually straight line. Most rivers, after all, do twist and turn, even if briefly and limitedly, and could well have curved to the west north of Zarahemla. 

There is simply far too much we do not know to make such a two-river claim on this one arguable statement. In addition, in the next post we will show how this Theorist misreads the scripture he is using to make his point of another River Sidon.

Were There Two Sidon Rivers? Part II—Meaning of the Word Thence

Continuing with the Theorists view of there being two Sidon Rivers in the Land of Promise, in the last post we discussed how the time frame is stated quite different in the scriptural record than this Theorist indicated in his position.

In addition, there is the word “thence” which, in his stated position, this Theorist again misleads the reader into believing the scriptures say something they do not. His statement is: ““And now it came to pass that Alma...returned to his own house at Zarahemla…Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek on the West of the River Sidon (Alma 8:1,3).

The  way this is written, it sounds like Alma returned to Zarahemla, thence went to the land of Melek. The word “thence” in such a case would indicate that from Zarahemla, Alma went to the land of Melek. When stated like this, the Theorist misleads the reader into thinking that indeed, there are two Sidon Rivers. But that is not the sequence in the scriptural record.

After Alma returns to his home in Zarahemla to rest after preaching in the Valley of Gideon, the Nine Year of the Reign of the Judges comes to a close. Since Mormon is abridging a record, we do not know how long a period of time elapsed after Alma returned and the close of the year. This could have been days, weeks or even months. There could have been a entire season of change in between, since that might indicate a reason why Alma returned at that particular time. The next event listed by Mormon, is that after the Tenth year began, and we do not know how long between the start of the year and when Alma is reported to have crossed over the Sidon River on his way to the Land of Melek, it cannot be said that the scriptural record indicates he left from Zarahemla to go to Melek.

One of the explanatory statements used by the Theorist is the word “thence” as though it followed the immediate return to Zarahemla. That is, the word “thence” as he used it in is abbreviated statement of the scriptural record, skipping seventy-seven words in between his two comments, which he makes seem to go immediately together—but those seventy-seven words contain a couple of thoughts not consistent with the point he is trying to make.

In addition, the word thence, when used as written in the scriptural record, does not suggest “from there” but something entirely different. The word “thence,” of course, is not a typical word in English, seldom used today. But in Joseph Smith’s time, the word had four meanings:

1. from that place (from one place to another) 

2.  from that time (after that time) 

3.  (to introduce a logical conclusion) from (that time) thence he went (thus; same as therefore) 

4.  for that reason (for the reason of the previous action)

Thus, when we look at the entire statement in Alma 8:1-3, we find that the first meaning “from that place” would not be applicable, since too much transpires between the two thoughts (return to Zarahemla, and going to Melek).

The statement, in context, could mean:

1. That Alma departed from thence (from that time [commencement of the tenth year]) and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness;

2. (it was the first of the year), thus Alma departed to Melek (from where?)

3. that Alma departed from thence (for that reason) and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness.  

All three of these possibilities make more sense than the statement “from Zarahemla,” thus we cannot know from the scriptural record where Alma was when he began his journey to Melek. Consequently, we cannot say he was in Zarahemla and crossed the River Sidon to go to Melek on the west as this Theorist claims.

As an example, in the case of the the examples above, this could also be the most practical use of “thence” just a few verses later: “So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed thence. (Alma 8:6). To read this verse using “from there” the verse would read: “So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed Melek..” which is not as effective reading as “So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed then (or at that time).” 

(See the next post, “Were There Two Sidon Rivers? Part III,” for more on this idea of there being two Sidon Rivers, though there is no mention of a fork in the river or any other indication other than the scripture in Alma 8:1-3) 

Were There Two Sidon Rivers? Part I

One Theorists claims that there were two River Sidons. He writes: “The River Sidon had two forks which ran along each side of the City of Zarahemla.” This, he claims, is based on two scriptures—Alma 6:7 for the Eastern Fork, and Alma 8:1, 3) for the Western Fork.

Alma 6:7 states: “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."

Now this Theorist adds: “And now it came to pass that Alma...returned to his own house at Zarahemla…Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek on the West of the River Sidon (Alma 8:1,3). The way he writes this, it sounds like these are two immediate, simultaneous events, which is entirely misleading, since these two events (verse 1 and verse 3) are not immediate.

To better understand this, let us read the entire scriptures involved:

Alma 8:1 states: " And now it came to pass that Alma returned from the land of Gideon, after having taught the people of Gideon many things which cannot be written, having established the order of the church, according as he had before done in the land of Zarahemla, yea, he returned to his own house at Zarahemla to rest himself from the labors which he had performed."

Alma 8:2 (which this Theorists conveniently skips over) states: “And thus ended the ninth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi."

Then, in the following verse, this Theorists leaves out the beginning of the verse, which reads in total:

Alma 8:3 states: “And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness."

Stated different, Alma, after preaching in the Valley of Gideon (chapter 7), which is on the east side of the River Sidon (6:7 as stated above), he returns to his home in Zarahemla “to rest himself from the labors which he had performed” (Alma 8:1). Then Mormon’s abridgement states that the Ninth Year of the Judges ended. Then Mormon begins verse 3 with the statement: “And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi,” which tells us there was a time break between verse 1 and verse 3--i.e., the end of one year and the start of another. How long that time break was, and what Alma did during the time break, is not recorded. He could have been out and around in the days, weeks, months between the end of the Ninth Year and the Commencement of the Tenth Year. 

Alma may have been involved in mundane events which Mormon chose to skip over in his abridgement. We do not know at what point in the Ninth Year Alma returned to his home to rest up—certainly there was a space of time involved since Mormon states it so. In between these events, Alma may have gone back to Gideon to see how his instructions were carried out. He may have started out to the east and retraced his steps to cross back over to the west. We simply do not know what, if anything, occurred between the close of one year and the beginning of the next. After all, Mormon was abridging Alma's record and had to choose what to include and what to leave out.

The preaching of Alma and Amulek make up an important portion of the Book of Alma

It should be kept in mind that the Book of Alma is the longest book in the scriptural record, consisting of sixty-three chapters. The first four chapters deal with some rebellions of the Nehors and the Amlicites. At the end of chapter four, Alma realizes that the affairs of the Church requires his entire concentration and resigns from his political office (chief judge and governor of the land) and concerns himself with missionary travels in Chapters five through sixteen, taking his message of the atonement of Christ, overcoming the natural man, retaining conversion, and the resurrection of all men. With such a bulk of material, Mormon obviously had to cut out writings about these travels to concentrate on the main messages of Christ.

In addition, the meaning of “commencement” has more than one understanding: one of the meanings of “commence” is “beginning or introduction.” Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, states the meaning of “commence” is “beginning, to originate, to enter upon. The meaning of commencement is “beginning, rise, origin, first existence.” Thus, in addition, to there being a time break between these two events, which might lead us to believe Alma was not still in Zarahemla when the Tenth year began, but possibly visiting, preaching, officiating, or organizing in his calling as the leader and high Priest of the Church, the statement might mean that Alma, being elsewhere, commenced the Tenth Year by leaving where he was and going over into the Land of Melek, which was an event Mormon thought important to mention.

The point is, we do not know for certain where Alma was when the Tenth Year began, nor do we know for certain where he was at the end of the Ninth Year. We only know that after Alma preached in the Valley of Gideon, he returned home to Zarahemla to rest.

(See the next post, “Were There Two Sidon Rivers? Part II,” for more on this idea of there being two Sidon Rivers, though there is no mention of a fork in the river or any other indication other than the scripture in Alma 8:1-3). 

Mesoamerican Toltecs-Fact or Fiction?

Mesoamerican Theorists as well as Mesoamericanists in general, have placed a great deal of emphasis on the writings of Fernando de Alva Cortes Ixtlilxochitl, and the fifteen nobles who supposedly wrote The Lords of Totonicapan.

Some claim the original settlers of Mesoamerica were the Olmecas, dating them from about 1200 B.C. until about 200 A.D., and were the mother tribe to all Mexican Indians and Mexico's first established culture, as well as the Mayan. It is claimed that this culture was particularly mysterious, since little is known about its origin, political structure, or reason for their appearance or disappearance. In addition, there followed the Teotihuacan, of which Quetzalcoatl is supposed to have been; then the Maya, also from around 1200 B.C. to 1400 A.D.; the Toltecas, 950 A.D. to 1300 A.D., having built one of Mexico's most impressive cities--Tula, later defeating the Maya in battle; and finally, the Aztecas, 1345 A.D. to 1521 A.D., when the Spanish arrived.

Among modern scholars, however, it is a matter of debate whether the Aztec narratives of Toltec history should be given any credence as descriptions of actual historical events. While all scholars acknowledge that there is a large mythological part of the narrative some maintain that by using a critical comparative method some level of historicity can be salvaged from the sources, whereas others maintain that continued analysis of the narratives as sources of actual history is futile and hinders access to actual knowledge of the culture of Tula, Hidalgo.

Other controversy relating to the Toltecs include how best to understand reasons behind the perceived similarities in architecture and iconography between the archaeological site of Tula and the Maya site of Chichen Itza, though no factual consensus has emerged about the degree or direction of influence between the two sites.

Left: Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico; Right: Tula, Hidalgo, Central Mexico

In fact, in recent decades, the historicist position has fallen out of favor for a more critical and interpretive approach to the historicity of the Aztec mythical accounts based on the original approach of Daniel Brinton. This approach applies a different understanding of the word Toltec to the interpretation of the Aztec sources, interpreting it as largely a mythical and philosophical construct by either the Aztecs or Mesoamericans generally that served to symbolize the might and sophistication of the several different civilizations during the Mesoamerican Postclassic period.

Many historicists such as H. H. Nicholson and Nigel Davies were fully aware that the Aztec Chronicles were a mixture of mythical and historical accounts, which led them to try to separate the two by applying a comparative approach to the varying Aztec narratives, such as between the deity Quetzalcoatl and a Toltec ruler often referred to as Topiltin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl.

Actually, there are three deities that are sometimes mixed up within the Aztec Chronicles: Left: Xochipilli, who Quetzalcoatl sometimes becomes; Center: Quetzalcoatl; Right: Xochiquetzal

This historicist view was first challenged by the Yale graduate, Daniel Brinton, who was the president of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, of the American Folklore Society, the American Philosophical Society, and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He argued that the Toltecs as described in the Aztec sources were merely one of several Nahuatl-speaking city states in the post classic period, and not a particularly influential one at that. He attributed the Aztec view of the Toltecs to the "tendency of the human mind to glorify the good old days."

Scholars such as Michel Graulich (researcher in art history and religions of the pre-Colombian America and especially of Mesoamerica) and Susan D. Gillespie (anthropologist, archaeologist, and ethnologist) maintain that the difficulties in salvaging actual historic data from the Aztec accounts of Toltec history are too great to overcome. This causes Graulich and gillespie to suggest that the general Aztec cyclical view of time, where events repeated themselves at the end and beginning of cycles or eras was being inscribed into the historical record by the Aztecs, making it futile to attempt to distinguish between an historical Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl, a mythologized figure of historical traditions said to be a 10th century ruler whose name first appeared in 16th century writings, and a Quetzalcoatl deity. This causes Graulich to consider that the only possible historical data in the Aztec chronicles are the names of some rulers and possibly some of the conquests ascribed to them.

Further, more among the Nahuan peoples the word Tolteca was synonymous with artist, artisan or wise man, and toltecayotl. Totltecness meant art, cultured and civilization and urbanism--and was seen as the opposite of Chichimecayotl--Chichimecness which symbolized the savage, nomadic state of peoples who had not yet become urbanized. This interpretation argues that any large urban center in Mesoamerica could be referred to as Tollan and its inhabitants as Toltects--and that it was common practice among ruling lineages in Postclassic Mesoamerica to strengthen claims to power by claiming Toltec ancestry.

Mesoamerican migration accounts often state that Tollan was ruled by Quetzalcoatl (or Kikulkan in Yucatec and O'ug'umatz in K'iche'), a godlike mythical figure who was later sent into exile from Tollan and went on to found a new city elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Claims of Toltec ancestry and a ruling dynasty founded by Quetzalcoatl have been made by such diverse civilizations as the Aztec, the Quiche, and the Itza' Mayans.

Quetzalcoatl depicted in various forms in different ancient writings: Top LtoR: Telleriano-Remensis Codex, Magliabechiano Codex; Bottom LtoR: Borgia Codex, Borbonicus Codex

While the skeptical school of thought does not deny that cultural traits of a seemingly central Mexican origin have diffused into a larger area of Mesoamerica, it tends to ascribe this to the dominance of Teotihuacan in the Classic period and the general diffusion of cultural traits within the region. Recent scholarship. then, does not see Tula, Hidalgo, as the capital of the Toltecs of the Aztec accounts, but rather takes "Toltec" to mean simply an inhabitant of Tula during its apogee. Yet, separating the term "Toltec" from those of the Aztec accounts, in attempts to find archaeological clues to the ethnicity, history and social organization of the inhabitant of Tula, leads to other problems.

The point of all this is simple. If the people involved in establishing early Mexican and Mayan histories feel most of what has been written is mythical and cannot even agree on the form or grouping of a single classification--Toltecas--of only two centuries before the Spaniards arrived, then what confidence can we place in overall Mesoamerican historicity proclaimed by these very historians and scientist of a history dating one or two thousand years ago? Yet, Book of Mormon Mesoamerican Theorists talk about Mesoamerican history as though it is completely understood and agreed upon even as far back as 1200 B.C. and earlier with the Olmec people, ignoring the many others, who are not trying to prove the location of the Land of Promise, who have written very differently about it.