The Head, Source, or Headwaters of the Sidon – Part IV

Continuing with the understanding of how rivers and how the Mississippi River is not the Sidon River, although Rodney L. Meldrum’s claims it to be in his Heartland Model. We concluded the last post with an explanation of a river’s confluence (conflux) and the difference between a tributary and a distributary—evidently an understanding that has escaped Meldrum.

The head or source of the Mississippi River is in Minnesota at Lake Itasca—it is the only head of the Mississippi River; The mouth or end of the Mississippi River is the Gulf of Mexico below New Orleans in Louisiana—it is the only mouth of the Mississippi River. There are no other heads or mouths. The head or source is in Minnesota and the Mouth is in Louisiana at the Gulf of Mexico; Right: the official beginning of the Mississippi River is the rock “wall” across the head, headwaters or source at Lake Itasca

So let’s take the word “head,” which does not have two definitions in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, but a total of 42 different applications. However, only one has to do with a river or water source and that is “Head: verb intransitive hed. To originate; to spring; to have its source, as a river,” and also “The principal source of a stream, as the head of the Nile.”
    Yet, ever pressing his point, Meldrum continues: “This being the case, it cannot be said with confidence that the river Sidon flowed north.  It could have been flowing in either direction.  Therefore, the Mississippi River, based on this criterion, is a valid alternative to be considered to be the Book of Mormon’s “River Sidon.”
    Whether the Sidon river flowed northward, or flowed southward, is not the point of this. The scriptural reference has to do with the “head of the River Sidon” and not its direction of flow. As Meldrum well knows, every definition one might present defines the head of a river as its “source.” And in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, we find a definition of “source” as: “Properly, the spring or fountain from which a stream of water proceeds, or any collection of water within the earth or upon its surface, in which a stream originates. This is called also the head of the stream. We call the water of a spring, where it issues from the earth, the source of the stream or rivulet proceeding from it. We say also that springs have their sources in subterranean ponds, lakes or collections of water. We say also that a large river has is source in a lake. For example, the St. Lawrence has its source in the great lakes of America.”
    Thus, the head of a river is its source, and the source is the river’s beginning—it cannot be applied to a part of a single river downstream from its head or source.

Where the Ohio River ends as it flows into the Mississippi River, creating the mouth of the Ohio River. There is no head of the Mississippi River here since the Mississippi River’s head, source, and beginning is at Itasca Lake in Minnesota

If a branch of that river breaks off, called a distributary, and is given a new name, then that break off point becomes the head of the new river, but never of the stem, predominant or main river, as Meldrum claims of the Mississippi where the Ohio River converges with the Mississippi at the mouth of the Ohio River or the Atchafalaya River where it separates to become a separate river in central Louisiana.
    Meldrum, however, not one to accept defeat, continues to chip away at his point. He states: “In Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, the reference dictionary in Joseph Smith’s time, the word 'head' as relating to a river is defined thus: ‘The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.' While this is one definition, there is also another equally valid definition relating to rivers which is less well known but very important to a more complete understanding.” He then states a definition of the words “conflux” and “confluence” out of Webster’s 1828 dictionary: “Conflux: A flowing together; a meeting of two or more currents of a fluid,” then adds: “Confluence: A flowing together; the meeting or junction of two or more streams of water, or other fluid; also, the place of meeting; as the confluence of the Tigris and the Frat, or of the Ohio and Mississippi.”
    However, no one is denying that a single river stem, or main river, may have several tributaries (that flow into) or several distributaries (that flow out of) its length. What is in question is that Meldrum is claiming that the main stem river has a new head when such a joining occurs, and as has been pointed out here, that is simply not true!
    Meldrum then states: “So the 'head' of the Sidon river of the Book of Mormon has two possible definitions, one at the commencement of a stream or river and one which is defined as the location where two branches or tributaries of a river meet, or their confluence. Which definition did the Book of Mormon authors and translator mean and is there a scriptural basis for the idea of the 'head' of a river being a junction of two or more rivers?”
    The problem, once again, is that there are not two definitions of the word “head” relating to the “head of a river,” despite Meldrum claiming there are. The answer to this is quite simple when we don’t add unrelated ideas to the explanation. As an example, Meldrum quotes the dictionary, then adds the word “head” into their definitions of “conflux” and “confluence” which the dictionary does not do nor imply. The conflux of a river is where two rivers join, or the confluence of two rivers. There are no references to a “head” in these two explanations, because the head of the stem river does not change at any confluence or distributary.

White Circle shows the area of the “Head of the Sidon River,” which was “away beyond the borders of Manti into the south wilderness” [map for illustrative purposes only]

Alma describes this “head of the River Sidon,” or its headwaters or source, when he gives this explanation of the Land of Nephi, over which the Lamanite King presided, and tells us about this land in his insert (Alma 22:27): “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…” This is the extent of the Land of Nephi, running from the Sea West to the Sea East. He also explains the north boundary: “which [Land of Nephi] was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west…” Again, there was a wilderness, later called the South Wilderness, which was a narrow strip of land, possibly mountainous (especially where the Head of the River Sidon was located), or a series of canyons, but likely not suitable for settlement. Mormon goes on to describe this narrow strip of wilderness by saying: “and round about on the borders of the seashore,” suggesting that the area in which the Lamanites occupied was an area along both the west and east seashores that curved up—round about—and ran for a distance along the coasts (shown in the above map as parallel diagonal lines). “and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla,” That is, the northern line or border of this narrow neck of land ran across the Land of Zarahemla, with the narrow strip on the south and the Land of Zarahemla on the north. “through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west” That is, the narrow strip of wilderness ran from the Sea East to the Sea West, completely dividing the Land of Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi. “and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.”
    Of this arrangement Rod Meldrum stated his opposite viewpoint: “The direction of flow of the river that is in question since there is no scripturally explicit text so indicating. Nowhere does the text of the Book of Mormon definitively state the direction of flow of the Sidon River, therefore it was simply deduced from alternative sources of information.”

However, the facts in Mormon’s description seem quite clear:
1. The head of the river Sidon was in the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 22:27);
2. The narrow strip of wilderness was south of the Land of Zarahemla, between the lands of Zarahemla and Nephi (Alma 22:27);
3. The Sidon River had an east bank and a west bank (Alma 2:15, 17;43:53; east bank 49:16; west bank: 8:3, 43:27,32,53). There is no mention of north or south banks, therefore the Sidon River flowed northward or southward;
4. The Sidon River ran by the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 2:15);
5. The Land of Gideon was to the east of the River Sidon (Alma 2:26-27; 6:7);
6. The Sidon River ran between the Land of Zarahemla (to the West) and on the East the Land of Gideon, Valley of Gideon and City of Gideon (Alma 8:1; 49:16).
7. The Land of Gideon was north of the Land of Manti (Alma 17:1), which borders were in the narrow strip of wilderness near the Head of the River Sidon (Alma 16:7; 22:27).
    Therefore, since the Head of the River Sidon was in the south or narrow strip of wilderness to the south of the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:27), and ran either north or south, running by the land of Zarahemla, which was to the north, the Sidon River had to run north, or it could not have run past the Land of Zarahemla to the Sea. Thus, it was not “simply deduced from alternative sources of information,” but taken directly and singularly from the scriptural record.
    Consequently, when we follow the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon and understand the meaning of the words without changing, altering, or fudging on such meanings, we find a very clear understanding of what Mormon and others wrote and meant us to understand. In this case, the head of the River Sidon was to the south of the Land of Zarahemla up in the higher elevations of the narrow strip of wilderness and flowed northward, along the borders of the Land of Zarahemla between that land and the Land of Gideon. It is too bad that theorists feel it necessary to try and explain their views by discounting what the scriptural record actually says about the matter.