Why is There a Debate Over Where the Source of the River Sidon Was Located? – Part II

Continued from the previous post, regarding the plain and simple language used by Mormon to described the “head” of the river Sidon, and all the misunderstanding that has ensued because of various theorists needing to change that simple meaning to support their different views, opinions, and Land of Promise models.
    We ended the previous post regarding Moron’s statement that the record the Nephites kept that the Lord “hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof” (Mormon 9:34). Thus, we see that the Lord did, in fact, prepare someone. Joseph Smith, through several years of tutelage by Moroni, and visits from numerous other angelic visitors, such as Nephi, Mormon, Alma, the Three Nephites, Elias, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Adam, Abraham, Seth, Enoch, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Gabriel (Noah), prepared Joseph for his initial role of interpreting the plates Mormon and Moroni abridged, and bringing forth the Book of Mormon and going on to Lead the Church. Consequently, it is always amazing that modern man, with such limited knowledge, always feel comfortable altering meanings and events of the scriptural record Joseph translated, to fit their own opinions and interests.
    In addition, Brandley states in his conclusion that: “As rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon ran from Zarahemla south to Manti and through the east-west narrow strip of wilderness to the “head of the river Sidon” near the sea.”

Rivers do not normally run by seas—these 24 major rivers in the contiguous United States are far from the sea

First of all, “rivers do not necessarily run by the sea.” The largest rivers in North America, the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Rio Grande, St. Lawrence, Yukon, Colorado, Brazos, Columbia, Fraser, and Mackenzie, do not run by the sea or ocean. In fact, while most run into the sea, the Ohio and Missouri do not (they flow into the Mississippi), nor does Canada’s Churchill, which flows into Hudson Bay, and the Frazer, in Canada, flows into the Strait of Georgia at the city of Vancouver.
    Secondly, the “head of the river Sidon was by the sea,” is not an accurate location according to the descriptions in the scriptural record. In one instance we find that the river Sidon was located between the Valley of Gideon (to the east) and the city of Zarahemla (to the west), showing it was not be a seashore (Alma 2:26-27). 
    In addition, the river Sidon was not by the West Sea, for when the Lamanites and Amlicites on the west side of the river Sidon, they began to flee toward the wilderness which was on the west and north of Zarahemla (Alma 2:34-36); nor was it near the East Sea since the Valley of Gideon, which was east of the river Sidon (Alma 6:7), was east of Zarahemla, from which the Amlicites fled from ner the valley of Gideon into the land of Minon, above the land of Zarahemla (Alma 2:20-24). In addition, the river Sidon was far from the Sea East for when Zoram and his sons crossed the river Sidon with their armies, they “marched away beyond the borders of Manti into the south wilderness, which was on the east side of the river Sidon” (Alma 16:6).
    Persisting, Brandley also states: “There is a second witness from the text in Alma 50:11 confirming that the head of the river Sidon was by the sea: “And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon (emphasis added).

The Narrow Strip of Wilderness, along which a “fortified line” was developed by Moroni who built fortifications along the northern boundary, or the southern boundary of the Land of Zarahemla. It was this line that ran from sea to sea as did the narrow strip of wilderness. Within that strip was the head (headwater) of the Sidon River

This statement by Mormon is descriptive of the narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the West Sea to the East Sea (Alma 22:27), and in so doing, ran “by the head of the river Sidon.” This is like saying Salt Lake City is between the Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch Mountains, meaning the city runs from the west at the International Airport, running by the University of Utah (to the mountains). 
    This does not mean the University of Utah is near or has anything to do with the airport in the western boundary of Salt Lake City (actually, it is near the eastern boundary of the city). But the language is such that one can claim, as Brandley does about the river Sidon, as being near the Airport simply because those were the two descriptive terms used in the same sentence. However, as pointed out in earlier statements, the river Sidon was nowhere near the West Sea, and Mormon’s descriptive term does not equate to the river Sidon running into the West Sea south of Zarahemla as Brandley claims, when he stated: “As rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon therefore flowed from Zarahemla south to the ‘head of the river Sidon’ and into the sea.’

The Sidon River, with its head or headwaters or source in the Narrow Strip of Wilderness, ran downhill into the Land of Zarahmla, and ran by the Land of Zarahemla and Gideon, and eventually to the sea somewhere to the north

However, evidently unaware of the fallacy of his argument, Brandley adds: “That the Sidon actually ran to the sea is confirmed when we read that after a major battle the dead bodies that were thrown into the river Sidon near Zarahemla were carried into the sea (Alma 2:15, 3:3).” The point is, no one is questioning that the river Sidon emptied into the sea, there is ample confirmation to this in the scriptural record—however, what sea and where is unknown and if Brandley wants to speculate on this, he is certainly entitled to, but to state his speculation and opinion as proof of his geographical setting is both unscholarly and misleading. However, to those who never fact check what is written by these theorists, some are bound to be sucked into the opinion world and not the factual approach of what the scriptural record actually states.
    Thirdly, the major problem in this is that Manti was at a higher elevation than Zarahemla. First of all, the city was adjacent to the Hill Manti, which evidently was quite high (Alma1:15). Secondly, the river Sidon was in the south wilderness (the narrow strip of wilderness), away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti (Alma 16:6), making Manti at a higher elevation than Zarahemla. Fourthly, Zoram and his sons crossed over the river Sidon…and marched away beyond the borders of Manti into the south Wilderness” again showing Manti was higher than Zarahemla (Alma 16:7). Fourth, “the borders of Manti were by the head of the river Sidon” (Alma 22:27), again showing that Manti was at a higher elevation, within the narrow strip of wilderness, south of Zarahemla.

The obvious point to be learned from seeing how various theorists deal with scripture and their so-called opinions and speculations as “facts,” should suggest to all that there is only one answer to understanding and pursuing knowledge within the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon and that is to accept what Mormon and Moroni abridged, and what Nephi, Jacob, and the other early prophets and recorders wrote, and to accept it as written with its clear and simple meanings. 
   As Nephi wrote: “according to the simpleness of their words” (2 Nephi 3:20), and that “I shall prophesy according to the plainness which hath been with me from the time that I came out from Jerusalem with my father; for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn” (2 Nephi 25:4), and also “I proceed with mine own prophecy, according to my plainness” 2 Nephi 25:7). Nephi also said of this, “And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err” (2 Nephi 25:20)—for it is only when scholars, historians, and theorists get complicated in their explaining away the simple intent of the scriptural record that people begin to err, and they cause other to err. For Nephi added, “I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way” (2 Nephi 25:28).
    It should be noted that toward the end of his record, Nephi states: “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness” (2 Nephi 26:33, emphasis added). He then states: “I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying” (2 Nephi 31:2), adding for emphasis: “For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3).
    Are we really going to change and alter the clear and simple meaning of Mormon and thr other prophets of the Book of Mormon and claim we know better what they meant than exactly what was simply and plainly stated?
(See the next post, regarding the other four so-called “common misunderstandings of the text of the Book of Mormon that have kept the truth of its geography hidden for the past 185 years”)