People are still asking me about the head of the river Sidon. I discussed this almost 10 years ago on this blog, but most people have no idea about that.
I'm reposting it here, with some additions.
Several verses are implicated.
17 And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them.(1 Nephi 8:17)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(Alma 22:27)nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side;(Alma 22:29)11 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(Alma 50:11)25 Neither durst they march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah.(Alma 56:25)
The John Sorenson translation--he always writes "headwaters" instead of "head" when he refers to this--seems to have replaced Joseph Smith's translation in the minds of many M2Cers. They think these passages refer to the "source" of the Sidon river, which is one step removed from even the Sorenson translation.
For purposes of this discussion, I'll agree to set aside the Joseph Smith translation in favor of the Sorenson translation. Let's say, for sake of argument, that the "head of Sidon" is the same as "headwaters of Sidon." Now let's look at how the term was used in Joseph's Smith's day.
In the Zarahemla book, p. 273 (2nd Ed.) I pointed out that:
"Even “headwaters” does not always mean the source of a river. In 1842, Jesse W. Crosby kept a journal about his missionary journey from Nauvoo to Michigan. “I set off on a northeasterly course towards Michigan, crossing the headwaters of the Illinois at Ottawa, thence up the Knakakee River.” The Illinois River extends another 30 miles east of Ottawa, so what was Crosby referring to? The Fox River joins the Illinois River at Ottawa. To Crosby, “headwaters” meant a confluence."
I used to live along the Fox River in Illinois. It's not a major river, but it is notable and there are several towns along the river (as in most of the Midwest, people settled along the rivers, just as they did in Book of Mormon times). If I canoed down the Fox River behind our house I would end up entering the Illinois River.
Here's a map showing the "headwaters" vs. the "source" of the Illinois River.
Next, let's see how Oliver Cowdery used the term.
In his Letter VIII, Oliver Cowdery wrote "This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river. Some forty miles south, or down the river, in the town of Harmony, Susquehannah county, Pa...." I quoted letter VIII previously here:
Bainbridge, NY, is at least 40 miles from Cooperstown, the location of the source of the Susquehannah River. (South Bainbridge, today known as Afton, was where Stowell lived, and it is another 5 miles downriver.
Did Oliver not know the source of the river was nowhere near Bainbridge? Of course he did. Then why did he say Stowel resided "on or near" the head waters in Bainbridge?
You can see from the map that tributaries flow into the river at or near Afton. Oliver used the term "head waters" the same way Jesse Crosby did.
Some say "headwaters" may refer to a crossing or bridge. That definition also makes sense in the Book of Mormon. One thing for sure is when Oliver wrote "head waters" he did not mean the source of the river.
These are two actual uses of the term head waters, contemporaneous with Joseph Smith, that don't mean the source. The fact that Oliver Cowdery of all people used the term to mean a confluence should be enough to settle the matter, but I suppose this debate will never be settled until Moroni sets us straight.
_____
Then there is Jonathan Edwards.
Edwards wrote a couple of letters referring to the "head of the river" that anyone can read at the Edwards Center at Yale University.
As to the affair of preaching the gospel to the Indians, Mr. [Elihu] Spencer went the last fall, far into the western wilderness; to the Oneidas, one of the tribes of Indians called the Six Nations, living on Susquehanna River, towards the head of the river , to a place called by the Indians, Onohquauga, about 180 miles southwest from Albany on Hudson's River, where he continued almost through the winter; and went through many difficulties and hardships, with little or no success, through the failing of his interpreter.
There had been here the last summer a man whose name was Jonah [Tonaughquunnaugus] from Onohquaga, a town of the Oneidas situated on Susquehanna River near the head of the river about 200 miles southwest from Albany. He was one of the principal inhabitants of the town, who, having heard of the things which were doing here for the instruction of the Indians, came to visit this place and make report to his people.
Naturally, we wonder where this Indian town was located.
Wikipedia explains: Onaquaga (also spelled many other ways) was a large Iroquois village, located on both sides of the Susquehanna River near present-day Windsor, New York.
Windsor, NY, is about 13 miles upriver from Harmony, Pa, where Joseph translated the abridged plates (which included the passages of Alma quoted above). On the map below, you can see it would take over 4 hours to walk from Windsor, NY (formerly Onaquaga) to Harmony, PA.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
The source of the Susquehanna River is Otsego Lake, at Cooperstown, NY, about 67 miles upstream from Windsor, NY.
Obviously, Edwards was not referring to the source of the Susquehanna River when he referred to the "head of the river." Instead, he referred to the "head of the river" at Onaquaga (now Windsor) because at that location, there is a tributary to the Susquehanna.
Windsor is about 100 miles from Albany as the crow flies. Edwards said it was "about 180 miles southwest from Albany on Hudson's River" because the Hudson River is on the other side of the watershed from the Susquehanna River. To get to Onaquaga, you can sail down the Hudson part of the way, then paddle upstream to the watershed divide and portage your boat over to one of the rivers on the other side that feeds into the Susquehanna.
The point is that to Edwards, the "head of the river" was only a few miles upstream from where Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, using that very term. And neither Joseph nor Edwards used it as a synonym for "source."
But people can disagree and still claim Joseph should have dictated the word "source" because (in their minds) that is what Joseph meant.
Other Latter-day Saints, such as me, prefer Joseph's translation to the Sorenson or other M2C translations.
