Conference tecrus::mormonism

	
	Hi Ed,
		
	I am glad to see your interest in Book of Mormon History.
	I have always been fascinated by it.  I am sure that this 
	note will give an opportunity to present many interesting
	facts and ideas concerning the Original Americans.  
	
	Of course it will take some time to put together entries 
	on this subject but I wanted to make an initial comment on
	the topic and respond to one point now.  



>"We emphasize the fact that the Mormons in our present day are still
>committed to the historical and geographical material in The Book of
>Mormon. 
		
	This is true.  We are very committed to the historical and 
	geographical material in the Book of Mormon.  We are cautioned
	about getting side tracked by speculation about specifics such
	as where did Lehi land or which route did they take.  We are 
	also reminded that there was a tremendous alteration of the 
	land at the time of Christ so that many geographical features
	will be altered.   We all love to study this and think about 
	where it all took place.  I do.


>It is taught as serious history in their schools, 
	

	This is a typical "Anti" lie.  The vast majority attend public
	schools as I did and are taught the same history complete with
	evolution and all the rest, the same as any other child is taught
	in America.  There was not even the slightest mention of "Mormon
	history" at any time in my school. 

	On my own time and in another building each school day I attended 
	LDS Seminary building where these ideals were, of course taught.
	But not in school.


>in their Sunday schools, and to their young missionaries. 
		
	In the words of a popular Utah colloquialism, "You bet".
		
	In His Love,
	-gary



    

    Re .1

>>It is taught as serious history in their schools, 

>	This is a typical "Anti" lie.  The vast majority attend public
>	schools as I did and are taught the same history complete with
>	evolution and all the rest, the same as any other child is taught
>	in America.  There was not even the slightest mention of "Mormon
>	history" at any time in my school. 

>	On my own time and in another building each school day I attended 
>	LDS Seminary building where these ideals were, of course taught.
>	But not in school.

    I'm not sure what you mean by typical "Anti" lie. He did not say
    that this was taught as serious history in public schools, but in
    "their schools", which, to me, means schools somehow connected to
    or supported by the LDS church, as in, I assume, LDS Seminary, as
    you mentioned. Where is the lie? 
    
    I object to how quickly you slap the the label "typical Anti lie"
    on such a simple and accurate (according to your comment on LDS 
    Seminary) statement. It suggests a very strong "anti" bias of your 
    own. This is certainly not consistent with what we have been hearing 
    about being honest seekers after truth and approaching things with
    an open mind.
    
    Ed
    
    




    

Re 80.6

>"Mormon apologists assure us that the Book of Mormon gives the *only*
>reliable history of what happened on the American continents from the
>time of the Tower of Babel until the beginning of the fifth century of
>the Christian era. (emphasis mine)

I'm going to be gone next week with my scout troop, but I wanted to make
one comment before I leave.  The Church doesn't teach that the Book of Mormon
is the *only* history during the time spanned by the book.  It teaches
that the Book of Mormon is the history of *one group* on those continents.
I expect that there may be individual Mormons who think the Book of Mormon
is the *only* history of ancient people, but if so, those people haven't
thought very deeply about the matter.

The Mulekites coexisted in relatively close proximity with the Nephites for
several hundred years, and neither group knew of the existence of the other.
I give this as an example that other people could have lived  (and likely did)
in relatively close proximity with the Nephites and not been known by them and
hence not even mentioned in the book.  There is nothing in the Book of Mormon
that implies that it is the record of the *only* people during the time spanned
by the book.  Also, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that implies that
the Nephites and Lamanites covered *all* of the North and South American
continents.  John L. Sorenson, in his book 'An Ancient American Setting for
The Book of Mormon' (Deseret Book Company and F.A.R.M.S., 1985, has created
a model of Book of Mormon geography that satisfies the scanty geographical
information given in the book, and that model involves only the Guatemalan
peninsula.

There is archaeological evidence that can't be denied that people have lived
in the American continents for at least 30,000 years, and it is ridiculous to
say those people disappeared in some way and that the land was re-populated by
the Jaredites as the *only* people in the land.

I also would like to say to Ed that he has opened a very interesting topic
for discussion, and I hope that everyone will be objective about the matter
and use rational sources of information.

Allen

re: the last few
    
I have to agree with Ed, here.  I don't think it was meant to imply that
Mormons did not go to public schools and probably did refer to the Seminary
program.  And, it was a bit premature to put an 'anti' or 'lie' label on
the comment.  However, I agree with you Gary, that given a little time 
we'll have an appropriate response and am in agreement with you that we
take the Book of Mormon as historically accurate.

By the way, Mormons do keep an open mind about things.  If it were not so, 
there would be no discussion nor research of topics.  And, they tend to feel
a sense of pride in keeping an open mind, which I will define as a mind willing
to research and to understand new ideas.  But, an open mind is not that same
as an undisciplined mind, which I will define as a mind that learns but does
not seek nor hold fast to truth.  Of course, if this is a question of semantics
and one asserts that to have an open mind necessitates not holding to truth, 
then I confess to being close-minded.


Steve

>"Mormon apologists assure us that the Book of Mormon gives the *only*
>reliable history of what happened on the American continents ...

> There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that implies that it is the record
> of the *only* people during the time spanned by the book.  Also, there is
> nothing in the Book of Mormon that implies that the Nephites and
> Lamanites covered *all* of the North and South American continents. 

Allen,

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but you seem to have
pu too much emphasis on the word "only". Nowhere have I ever gotten
the impression that the LDS church teaches that the Book of Mormon is the
*only* history of ancient America, and Mr. Fraser is not suggesting this
either. His statement was that the Book of Mormon is considered by Mormon
appologists to be the only *reliable* history of ancient America. 

What is your opinion on that?

Ed

Hi Ed,

It is easy for one to misunderstand what others say in writing.  I'm not
sure I understand what Mr. Fraser was trying to say, so let me ramble on
for a moment.

From what you just said, Fraser was saying that Mormon apologists say that
the Book of Mormon isn't the only history of ancient America but the only
reliable history.  That is, other histories, such as archaeological evidence,
are not reliable even though they are histories of a sort of ancient America.
Do I understand Fraser now?

What I thought Fraser was saying was that Mormon apologists say that the Book
of Mormon is the only history of ancient America, i.e. there were no other
peoples here and archaeological evidence, etc. has to pertain to the Book of
Mormon peoples.  My previous reply was directed to that understanding of
Fraser.

I've never heard the Church teach that archaeological evidence and other
scientific studies of ancient America are not reliable, although individual
Mormons might think that.  What I have heard the Church teach is that truth
must be consistent with itself, and that *eventually* the scientific knowledge
of ancient America and our understanding of Book of Mormon knowledge will have
to agree.  At the present time, they don't agree, and we are counseled to keep
an open mind and let time work things out.

I think that both scientific knowledge and *our understanding* of the Book of
Mormon will change.  An example of this might be the use of iron in ancient
America.  Sorenson, in his book that I mentioned in my previous reply, said
that archaeologists have found evidence that the ancient people did make use
of iron, especially iron from meteors.  As we read the Book of Mormon, we
form particular images and impressions about the Nephite use of iron that
are not necessarily correct, and as we read of archaeological discoveries
we gain greater insight as to what the words in the Book of Mormon might really
mean.  

If I still misunderstand Fraser, Ed, please try again so I can get my mind
clarified.

Allen

>From what you just said, Fraser was saying that Mormon apologists say that
>the Book of Mormon isn't the only history of ancient America but the only
>reliable history.  That is, other histories, such as archaeological evidence,
>are not reliable even though they are histories of a sort of ancient America.
>Do I understand Fraser now?

Exactly what is a history?  A history must somehow give a relatively good
representation of what happend (or at least purport to).  It should date to
about the time of the happenings and be written by someone that has some
connection to the events.  To me, the 'histories' etc. that come from
modern scholars/scientists/archeologists/etc. are not histories, they
are theses and ideas based upon some sort of evidence.  They could be
close to the truth, they may not be, and are definitely not 'histories'.

What histories are there from Ancient America?  There is the BoM, Popol Vuh,
and a few others, though these are actually taken from earlier 'lost' histories.
The information that I have seen (from other histories and/or archeological
finds) does not destroy the BoM, but rather provides support for its 
plausibility (note, I didn't say 'proves it' etc, only that the BoM does not
conflict with these ideas).

>I've never heard the Church teach that archaeological evidence and other
>scientific studies of ancient America are not reliable, although individual
>Mormons might think that.  What I have heard the Church teach is that truth
>must be consistent with itself, and that *eventually* the scientific knowledge
>of ancient America and our understanding of Book of Mormon knowledge will have
>to agree.  At the present time, they don't agree, and we are counseled to keep
>an open mind and let time work things out.

I don't quite understand what is meant here that they don't agree.  From my
studies, most major points do tend to agree or at least not conflict.  Note,
I do not believe that we will ever find archeological evidence that directly
*proves* the BoM, something like a ruin with a carving "Nephi son of Lehi
slept here..." or similar...


>I think that both scientific knowledge and *our understanding* of the Book of
>Mormon will change.  An example of this might be the use of iron in ancient

Scientific knowledge of everything is constantly changing...  How many 
different theories have there been on atomic structure since it has been
undertood that such exists?...

>America.  Sorenson, in his book that I mentioned in my previous reply, said
>that archaeologists have found evidence that the ancient people did make use
>of iron, especially iron from meteors.  As we read the Book of Mormon, we
>form particular images and impressions about the Nephite use of iron that
>are not necessarily correct, and as we read of archaeological discoveries
>we gain greater insight as to what the words in the Book of Mormon might really
>mean.  

We must also remember that the scientific studies and methods take little bits
and pieces and piece together plausible explanations for something, and that
as more bits and pieces emerge, these explanations change to try and explain
new evidence.  (This is not a flame on science -- I believe in science).
There is no such thing as science fact.  Take something as ordinary as
gravity.  There have been many different observations made and some pretty
good models made of gravity (eg.  W=mg if I remember correctly) but these
are only models based on evidence that make a good explanation of how it is.
W=mg may be correct or it may be off a bit, we have no way of knowing, but
it does satisfy our observations so we may use it.

So, science is a tool to help us explain things, and cannot be used to either
prove or disprove things like BoM, Bible, Jesus, etc.

CHad

RE:Note 145.2  CASV02::PRESTON "NO Dukes!!" -< "Typical Anti Lie?" >-and
Re:MIZZOU::SHERMAN "incompetence knows no bounds"      -< timeout! >-
    
	Rather than reply to these let me just say the obvious:
	I disagree. 
	"Why" does not matter as I do not want to side track the
	discussion, as the expression of my opinion seemed to do.
	
	
	It is my hope that some good sharing of ideas and information
	will take place on this topic.  



    

    Yes, this question of the Book of Mormon being considered as 'history'
    is a very interesting one indeed. 
    
    For myself, I do not believe that the Book of Mormon's purpose was to
    be a 'history' as such. I don't think that Mormon, as he abridged
    nearly one thousand years of his people's records was trying to lay out
    a complete accounting of their history. Sure, we do gain some insight
    into the events and conditions of their day, but that is not the
    primary purpose of the book. 
    
    Mormon, on the title page, says the book was written to a specific
    audience, and for a specific purpose: "Written to the Lamanites,... and
    also to Jew and Gentile.... to show unto the remnant of the House of
    Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that
    they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off
    forever - And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus
    is the Christ..." 
    
    In my view, the Book of Mormon was never intended to be a 'history' and
    should not be *primarily* evaluated on that basis. It should be
    evaluated on the basis of it's stated purpose: Does it testify of Jesus
    Christ in a convincing manner? Of course this is a personal
    consideration, one that each reader must evaluate for himself. 
    
    Certainly, there are historical aspects of the Book of Mormon. Mormons
    believe it to be a true record of things that actually happened. We
    don't believe this because of archaeological evidence or other external
    evidence, but because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, which bears
    witness of all truth. 
    
    Are there things in the Book of Mormon that do not seem plausible?
    Perhaps, but no more implausible than other things the Lord has done as
    recorded in the Bible, such as providing manna, walking on water,
    surviving a burning furnace, confounding the languages of all the
    earth, etc. If plausibility is to be a major consideration of the
    acceptability of Book of Mormon, then so must it also be of the Bible. 

    If there are apparent inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and
    *current* scientific understanding, we hope and trust that, over time,
    these will be resolved. For myself, I don't see great inconsistencies,
    but there are certainly a lot of unanswered questions. Exploring these
    questions is of great interest to Mormons, and a lot of time is spent
    by Mormons collectively investigating such things, not to 'prove' the
    Book of Mormon is true, but to increase our understanding of it. 
    
    Information from such investigations often provides interesting
    parallels of things mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which Mormons
    admittedly take pleasure in, but presently the only way to 'prove'
    whether the Book of Mormon is true or not is to first consider it in
    light of it's purpose - to testify of Jesus Christ - and then to ask
    God if it is true. 

    Your brother in Christ,
    Rich
                       

John L. Sorenson gave a reference to a book that might provide information
for this discussion.  The book is "In Search of Lehi's Trail", by Lynn and 
Hope Hilton, Deseret Book Company, 1976.  I haven't read the book, but the
title sounds like it could pertain to this note, and I thought I'd mention
it in case anyone can locate it.  Sorenson's footnote referenced the book
in connection with his discussion of Lehi's trip to this land.

Allen

Re 80.6

Hi Ed,

Fraser said a few things that aren't clear to me.

>"A sample of an impossible situation, in which time and place are
>definitely stated, is given in the second chapter of the Book of Mormon.
>The time is 600 BC, the place, Jerusalem and the borders of the Red Sea.
>To avoid capture by the Babylonians, Lehi, a patriarch, took his family
>away from Jerusalem, in spite of the specific command of the Lord to the
>contrary. 
>
>(1 Nephi 2:4-9)

That reference given by Fraser tells of Lehi leaving Jerusalem, but it doesn't
give the "specific command of the Lord to the contrary" that he shouldn't leave
the city.   In fact, the three verses immediately preceding the ones given by
Fraser say the following:

    For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even
    in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things
    which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto
    this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take
    away thy life.

    And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream,
    that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness.

    And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord,
    wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him. (1 Nephi 2:1-3)

Thus, it seems to me that contrary to what Fraser seems to be saying, Lehi
obeyed the Lord in leaving Jerusalem.



>"In this story are a number of clearly stated details that can be used as
>checkpoints. 1) they left Jerusalem during Nebuchadnezzar's seige.

Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.  My Bible dictionary gives 587 B.C. as the date
of the capture of Jerusalem.  Two points that I'm unsure about are, (a) for how
many years before the capture did the seige last, and (b) during the seige how
tight was the security that would prevent Jews from entering and leaving the
city in clandestine ways.



> 2)
>they travelled on foot. If they had donkeys to carry their luggage, they
>still would have had to walk beside the donkeys.

I would like to know how Fraser determined that from the Book of Mormon.  He
prefaced his list (of which this is #2) with the following statement, "In this
story are a number of clearly stated details that can be used as checkpoints."
So he apparently felt that the Book of Mormon clearly states that they walked.
I would expect that they traveled by camel caravan since they were the common
means of transportation in the desert and Lehi was a man of wealth.


>6) According to 1 Nephi 16:12-13 
>they were travelling in a 'south-southeast direction'.

The Book of Mormon is specific that the SSE direction was after they left the
valley of Lemuel.  Fraser apparently applies that direction to the first three
days after leaving Jerusalem, because he talks of them traveling 75 miles SSE
of Jerusalem during the three days.  However, Nephi 2:5 tells us that during
the three days, Lehi's travels brought him near the Red Sea.  Thus, the SSE
direction would take them along the east side of the Sea.  The northern tip
of the Red Sea is about 150 miles (straight-through) miles from Jerusalem, and
I would be interested in information about how far a caravan could travel in
three days.


>5. No rivers run into the Red Sea anywhere along the fifteen-hundred-mile 
>length of its western coast.

Fraser seems intent in having Lehi travel along the western side of the Red
Sea, because that side has no mountains or wood, two things specifically 
mentioned by Nephi as being there.  However, Hugh Nibley in his book "An
Approach to the Book of Mormon" has pointed out that if the family traveled
along the east side of the Sea, they would encounter both mountains and wood.
As I pointed out above, I feel the east side is the likely route not the
west side.

From Nibley:

***********

The Desert Route:  It is obvious that the party went down the eastern and not
the western shore of the Red Sea (as some have suggested) from the fact that
they changed their course and turned east at the nineteenth parallel of
latitude, and "...did travel nearly eastward from that time forth...," passing
through the worst desert of all, where they "...did travel and wade through 
much affliction...," and "...did live upon raw meat in the wilderness...."
(1 Ne. 17:1-2)  Had the party journeyed on the west coast of the Red Sea,
they would have had only water to the east of them at the 19th parallel and
for hundreds of miles to come.  But why the 19th parallel?  Because Joseph
Smith is reliably reported to have made an inspired statement to that
effect.  He did not know, of course, and nobody knew until the 1930's, that only
by taking a "nearly eastward" direction from that point could Lehi have
reached the one place where he could find the rest and the materials necessary
to prepare for his long sea voyage.

Of the Qara Mountains which lie in that limited sector of the coast of
South Arabia which Lehi must have reached if he turned east at the 19th
parallel, Bertram Thomas, one of the few Europeans who has ever seen them,
writes:

    What a glorious place!  Mountains three thousand feet high basking above a
    tropical ocean, their seaward slopes velvety with waving jungle, their
    roofs fragrant with rolling yellow meadows, beyond which the mountains
    slope northwards to a red sandstone steppe...Great was my delight when
    in 1928 I suddenly came upon it from out of the arid wastes of the southern
    borderlands.

As to the terrible southeastern desert, "The Empty Quarter," which seems from
Nephi's account to have been the most utter desolation of all, Burton could
write as late as 1852:

    Of Rub'a al-Khali I have heard enough, from credible relators, to conclude
    that its horrid depths swarm with a large and half-starving population;
    that it abounds in Wadys, valleys, gullies and ravines, that the land is
    open to the adventurous travelor.

The best western authority on Arabia was thus completely wrong about the whole
nature of the great southeast quarter a generation after the Book of Mormon
appeared, and it was not until 1930 that the world knew that the country in
which Lehi's people were said to have suffered the most is actually the worst
and most repelling desert on earth.

In Nephi's picture of the desert everything checks perfectly.  There is not
one single slip amid a wealth of detail, the more significant because it is
so casually conveyed. (pp. 199-200)

***********

Please keep in mind that Nibley's conclusion that "everything checks perfectly"
is made from other information which he presented in chapter 18 and which I
have omitted from this reply.

Allen

Re .11

>I would be interested in information about how far a caravan could travel in
>three days.

I just discovered that Nibley discusses how fast caravans travel.

***************

Rate of March.  Lehi's party is described as moving through the desert for
a few days (three or four, one would estimate) and then camping "for the
space of a time."  This is exactly the way the Arabs move.  Caravan speeds
run between two and one-quarter and three and nine-tenths miles an hour,
thirty miles being, according to Cheesman, "a good average" for the day,
and sixty miles being the absolute maximum."  "The usual estimate for a good
day's march is reckoned by Arab writers at between twenty-eight and thirty
miles; however, in special or favorable circumstances it may be nearly forty."
On the other hand, a day's slow journey "for an ass-nomad, moving much slower
than camel-riders, is twenty miles." (p. 193, his footnotes are omitted)

***************

Thus, it seems that traveling from Jerusalem to "near" the Red Sea in three
days was feasible.

Nibley discussed the sporadic style of traveling of the Arabs.

***************

The number of days spent camping at any one place varies [with the Arabs] (as
in the Book of Mormon) with circumstances.  "From ten to twelve days is the
average time a Bedouin encampment of ordinary size will remain on the same
ground," according to Jennings Bramley, who, however, observes, "I have known
them to stay in one spot for as long as five or six months."  The usual thing
is to camp as long as possible in one place until "it is soiled by the beasts,
and the multiplication of fleas becomes intolerable, and the surroundings
afford no more pasturage, (then) the tents are pulled down and the men 
decamp."  "On the Syrian and Arabic plain," according to Burckhardt "the
Bedouins encamp in summer...near wells, where they remain often for a whole
month."  Lehi's time schedule thus seems to be a fairly normal one, and the
eight years he took to cross Arabia argue neither very fast nor very slow
progress--the Beni Hilal took twenty seven years to go a not much greater
distance.  After reaching the seashore Lehi's people simply camped there "for
the space of many days," until a revelation again put them in motion.
(pp. 193-194, his footnotes are omitted)

Nibley talked about the Nephites eating raw meat.

***********

Nephi vividly remembers the eating of raw meat by his people in the desert and
its salutary effect on the women, who "did give plenty of suck for  their
children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men;..." (1 Ne. 17:2)
"Throughout the desert, writes Burckhardt "when a sheep or goat is killed, the
persons present often eat the liver and kidney raw, adding to it a little
salt.  Some Arabs of Yemen are said to eat raw not only those parts, but
likewise whole slices of flesh; thus resembling the Abyssinians and the
Druses of Lebanon, who frequently indulge in raw mean, the latter to my own
certain knowledge."  Nilus, writing fourteen centuries earlier, tells how the
Bedouin of the Tih live on the flesh of wild animals, failing which "they
slaughter a camel, one of their beasts of burden, and nourish themselves
like animals from the raw meat," or else scorch the flesh quickly in a small
fire to soften it sufficiently not to have to gnaw it "like dogs."  Only too
well does this state of things match the grim economy of Lehi: "...they did
suffer much for want of food,..." (1 Ne. 16:19) "...we did live upon raw
meat in the wilderness...." (1 Ne. 17:2)  (pp. 198-199, his footnotes omitted)

    Re .6

> What I thought Fraser was saying was that Mormon apologists say that the Book
> of Mormon is the only history of ancient America, i.e. there were no other
> peoples here and archaeological evidence, etc. has to pertain to the Book of
> Mormon peoples.  My previous reply was directed to that understanding of
> Fraser.

> I've never heard the Church teach that archaeological evidence and other
> scientific studies of ancient America are not reliable, although individual
> Mormons might think that.  

> From what you just said, Fraser was saying that Mormon apologists say that
> the Book of Mormon isn't the only history of ancient America but the only
> reliable history. That is, other histories, such as archaeological evidence,
> are not reliable even though they are histories of a sort of ancient America.
> Do I understand Fraser now?

   Allen,
   
   I'm going to be careful not to make more of this than there is,
   and refrain from speaking for Mr. Fraser, too. Here again is the
   statement in question:

   "Mormon apologists assure us that the Book of Mormon gives the only
   reliable history of what happened on the American continents from the
   time of the Tower of Babel until the beginning of the fifth century of
   the Christian era. The whole story is told in detail, as sober history..."
   
   I believe that what he is saying here is that Mormon apologists want us
   to believe that the Book of Mormon is a reliable historical account of 
   ancient America, the only *reliable* account, and that other accounts are 
   - to varying degrees - spotty, incomplete, questionable, etc. Certainly
   it seems that he is saying that Mormon apologists do not recognize a
   *more* reliable source of history than the Book of Mormon. Fair enough?
   
   Ed

Lehi's journey still sparks interest

He may have gone another way

By Josiah Douglas, director of Church Curriculum Planning and Development
Church News, January 2, 1988, pp. 11,13

The Book of Mormon is not a book of geography, and so far as known, no
one knows the exact route Lehi and his family traveled from Jerusalem to the
great sea they crosses to the promised land, but it is interesting to look
at some possible routes.

Most writers on this subject believe Lehi traveled from Jerusalem to the
Gulf of Aquaba (also Akabah and Acquaba), following the Frankincense
Trails, south down the Arabian Peninsula to approximately the 19th parallel.
They feel Lehi turned east at Najaran in Arabia to travel across the lower
portion of the Arabian Peninsula to Salalah Oman.

Using the verses from the Book of Mormon that record Lehi's travels, another
route might be proposed.  This one would take Lehi from Jerusalem to the
Gulf of Suez, southeast along the African side of the Red Sea to the Gulf
of Aden, then east across the horn of Africa to the "great sea," or Arabian
Sea, which is a part of the Indian Ocean.  The land Bountiful perhaps would 
be present-day Somalia.

Lehi was commanded to take his family, leave his home and go into the
wilderness. (1 Ne. 2:4)  After arriving in the "borders"--which may be the
territorial borders between Egypt and the Babylonian Empire--near the shore
of the Red Sea, Lehi and his family traveled for three more days and then
pitched their tents in a valley by the side of a river of water.  The family
spent some time camped in this valley, which Lehi named Lemuel. (1 Ne. 2:5-16)

The river seems to have been important to Lehi's family, for it is mentioned
several times in the passage that records their stay, and Nephi mentioned
specifically that the family crossed this river when they resumed their
journey into the wilderness. (1 Ne. 16:12)

Many writers have implied that this river was merely a wadi or a dry wash that
flowed after a thunderstorm.  But Nephi said the river flowed continually.
"And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain
of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like
unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness."
(1 Ne. 2:9)

There are no natural rivers running into the Red Sea, but there is another
possibility that should be considered.  Anciently there was a portion of the
Nile river that ran into the red Sea through a canal dug by the Egyptians.
In the early 20th century B.C., possibly during the reign of the Pharaoh
Sesostris I, the Egyptians dug a canal from the Nile delta to the Red Sea
near the present port of Suez.  Pharaoh Necho II began to restore it about
600 B.C., and the restoration was completed about 500 B.C. by the Persian
conqueror Darius I.

This freshwater canal may have been the river Laman.  It flowed down a natural
valley called the Wadi Tumilat (sometimes called the At-tumaylat Valley) and
linked the Pelusiac branch of the Nile with the Red Sea.  It had a large flow
of water that allowed transport of grain from the Nile Valley for shipment
to Mecca.  This waterway was used, modified, destroyed, and rebuilt over a
period of several hundred years.  It was finally put out of commission by
Caliph Abu Jaafar Adbullah al-Mansur in the 8th century A.D.

Lehi's party could have camped on the east side of this waterway in a natural
valley.  The river or canal would have been flowing continually into the
mouth of the Red Sea.  Crossing the river was probably not a simple task, hence
Nephi's mention of the event.

Lehi's use of the word "fountain" in his admonition to his son has more
significance when the River Laman is considered to be this ancient canal that
brought fresh water from the Nile into the Red Sea.

After Lehi's party crossed the River Laman, they traveled four days in a
south-southeast direction and pitched their tents again in a place they called
Shazer. (1 Ne. 16:13)  Along this route, there are several places with springs
and trees that could have provided a rest stop for Lehi's family.  The word
'shazar', pronounced "shazer" by the Arabs, means "trees." (See 'A Companion
to Your Study of the Book of Mormon', p. 114, by Daniel H. Ludlow.)

The seashore along the west side of the Gulf of Suez runs in a
south-southeasternly direction, which fits the description given in the
scriptures.  There is a narrow plain between the Red Sea and the mountains to
the west, along which Lehi's party could have traveled as they went down the
west side of the Gulf of Suez and then continued south-southeast along the
Red Sea.  The continuation of the journey is described in 1 Ne. 16:14.

The west side of the Red Sea is a very arid region.  The route I am suggesting
would have taken Lehi and his family through present-day Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia,
Djibouti, and Somalia.  They would have traveled across barren, uninhabited
stretches of desert.

This route seems to explain several things about the scriptural account of the
journey.  First, the account does not mention that the family made contact with
any other people.  The Frankincense Trails, which many people feel Lehi and his
family followed, were some of the most heavily traveled roads of the ancient
world.  It would seem very unlikely that the family could have traveled these
trails without encountering many other people.  If they had traveled along the
west side of the Red Sea, we can account for the silence of the scriptures about
fellow travelers.

Second, if Lehi was following well known trails, why did the Lord give him the
Liahona, and why did Laman and Lemuel accuse Nephi of leading them into a
"strange wilderness"? (1 Ne. 16:38)  Routes like the Frankincense Trails were
in common use at least 900 years before Lehi's day.  However, if his party had
traveled through what is today Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia,
they indeed would have needed a Liahona, for they would have been in a "strange
wilderness" with few people around to guide them.

Third, why did they live on raw meat, and why did the Lord command them not to
build fires? (1 Ne. 7:2,12)  If they had been on well-traveled trails, surely
other people would have been building fires.  If, however, they were in an 
unfamiliar area with little knowledge of who or what surrounded them, it may
have been unwise and unsafe to build fires.

Fourth, in their journey down the west side of the Red Sea, Lehi's group would
have passed through Egyptian territory.  This could help to explain the many
references Lehi and Nephi make to Egypt.  Nephi frequently used examples
drawn from the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt.
(1 Ne. 4:2-3; 5:14-15; 17:23, 27, 40; 19:10.)  These examples would have had
especially powerful effects upon his family if they had been traveling in the
very area where these events took place.  It is also interesting to note that
Lehi named his two sons born in the wilderness Jacob and Joseph, after his
ancestors who lived in Egypt.

Fifth, Lehi's party would have likely chosen to travel though territories where
the people were friendly to the Jews.  Egyptian territory was friendly.  In
fact, there were numerous cities in Egypt where Jews had settled.  Also, the
territory along the Gulf of Suez and then south along the red Sea was largely
uninhabited.  The populations of the Sudan and Ethiopia were located along the
Nile or in the highlands.  Somalia likewise had a sparse population.  The
people along the route through Edom, Midian, and Arabia were not friendly to
Jews.  If fact, they had a long tradition of great hatred toward the Hebrews.
When the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem, the Edomites joined them and excited
them to utterly raze the city and temple.  This was only 11 years after Lehi
left Jerusalem.  There were few, if any Jews, living in the towns and
territories of the Edomites.

The end of the wilderness journey was the land Bountiful.  In this area, Nephi
and his brothers constructed a ship and prepared to sail to the promised
land (1 Ne. 17:1-6)

In present-day Somalia, there is a place that could well have been the land
Bountiful, for it matches the location and bounty of the area described in the
scriptures.  The Nogal Valley, which runs from northwest to southeast, is a low
depression, that, despite sparse rainfall, is relatively well watered.  Its
name means "the fertile land," since it was once very fertile.  In recent years,
however, erosion has caused rapid loss of its rich soil and thick vegetation.

Lehi's wilderness journey from Jerusalem to the place where the ship was
constructed was an arduous journey.  Whether the family traveled down the
Arabian Peninsula or down the west side of the Red Sea to the horn of Africa
is not known, but at least the Book of Mormon reader has two possible routes
to consider.

Re .15

>I believe that Fraser is refering to the following passage from the OT:
>
>   Now Shephatiah the son of Mattan, and Gedaliah the son of Pashur, and
>   Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashur the son of Malchijah heard the
>   words that Jeremiah was speaking to all the people, saying, "Thus says
>   the Lord,'He who stays in this city will die by the sword and by famine
>   and by pestilence, but he who goes out to the Chaldeans will live and
>   have his own life as booty and stay alive.' Jeremiah 38:1-2
>
>Thus we see that the Lord commanded all the people to go out to the Chaldeans, 
>rather than run away, to save their lives.

In those verses, the Lord said that those who left the city and went to the
Chaldeans would live.  It is probably a matter of interpretation, but it seems
to me that that statement is not a commandment for everyone to go to the
Chaldeans.  Nor does it imply that those who left and went elsewhere were
sinning in some way or would be killed.  I think those verses are merely a
statement by the Lord that those who did go to the Chaldeans would live, and I
don't think the Lord was limiting himself from leading people to places other
than the Chaldeans.

The Book of Mormon explains that the Lord commanded Lehi to leave the city so he
would not be killed, and I think that story is in harmony with those verses
from Jeremiah.

Allen

    I noticed recently while reading Josephus that he mentioned some
    area where all the people were killed, then a couple of sentences
    later seemed to talk about the survivors.  I'd have to check this out to
    see if I can find it again and to see if I got this right.  My
    suspicion is that historians of that day did not tend to get too stuck 
    on details.  When they said 'all' the people or the 'whole earth', I'm 
    inclined to believe that they didn't always necessarily mean every last
    person or every piece of land on the earth.  They probably didn't see 
    this as a problem in that it did not detract from the meanings they
    were trying to convey.  I can look up the Josephus reference if
    anybody has interest ...
    
    Steve

Re. previous entries on Lehi's travels:

> By Josiah Douglas, director of Church Curriculum Planning and Development
> Church News, January 2, 1988, pp. 11,13
>
> There are NO NATURAL RIVERS running into the Red Sea, but there is another
> possibility that should be considered.  Anciently there was a portion of the
> Nile river that ran into the red Sea through a canal dug by the Egyptians.
> In the early 20th century B.C., possibly during the reign of the Pharaoh
> Sesostris I, the Egyptians dug a canal from the Nile delta to the Red Sea
> near the present port of Suez.  PHARAOH NECHO II BEGAN TO RESTORE IT ABOUT
> 600 B.C., AND THE RESTORATION WAS COMPLETED ABOUT 500 B.C. by the Persian
> conqueror Darius I.  (emphasis mine - EWP)
>
> This freshwater canal may have been the river Laman.  

> from Hugh Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon";
>
> The Desert Route:  It is obvious that the party went down the eastern and not
> the western shore of the Red Sea (as some have suggested) 

Between this entry and the one on Hugh Nibley's book, we are given
conflicting and irreconcilable theories that attempt to provide
plausible explanations for the account of Lehi's journey. 

First we must deal with the fact that there are no rivers anywhere near
where Lehi is supposed to have found one; on the Red Sea, three days
travel from Jerusalem. Nibley apparently overlooks this, while Douglas
seeks to replace it with an Egyptian canal. Either way, we still have
great problems. Nibley (in Allen's entry anyway) disregards it - so where
is it? Douglas would have us believe that the learned Lehi, who knows
Egyptian - and presumably Egypt - so well that he prefers to record his
family history in Egyptian rather than Hebrew, could mistake a commercial
Egyptian canal for a river, even giving it a name. Douglas also dates the
beginning of its restoration at about the same time that Lehi is said to
have left Jerusalem, yet Lehi somehow never encounters the workers, and
finds this "canal" with so much water flowing through it that he thinks
it's a river. This is not the picture of a canal in the early stages of
restoration. Furthermore, Douglas overlooks the fact that the area he
mentions as the location of this canal is far too distant from Jerusalem
to be reached in three days. 

Douglas goes on to surmise that Lehi travelled in the African continent.
Nibley states flatly that he did not. 

Thus we see that in attempting to justify a clearly impossible account
from the Book of Mormon, Mormon apologists rather give us a confusion of
conflicting speculation, none providing satisfactory or consistent
answers to the sort of basic questions which deserve to be answered before
one could be expected to take the Book of Mormon as a serious historical 
account. 

Ed

Re .19

>Between this entry and the one on Hugh Nibley's book, we are given
>conflicting and irreconcilable theories that attempt to provide
>plausible explanations for the account of Lehi's journey. 

In posting those two entries, Ed, I was well aware that they disagreed
with each other.  I didn't post them as 'plausible' explanations of Lehi's
journey, only as ideas that scholars have considered and that I thought 
would be of interest to those reading this note.

>First we must deal with the fact that there are no rivers anywhere near
>where Lehi is supposed to have found one; on the Red Sea, three days
>travel from Jerusalem.

I've always understood that the three-days referred to by Nephi was the
time from Jerusalem, but Douglas specifically said it was the time they
traveled after reaching the Red Sea.  I went back and studied the verses
involved, and I see that he is right and I've been wrong.

    And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he
    traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red
    Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which
    consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were
    Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.

    And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the 
    wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of
    water.  (1 Nephi 2:5-6)

The sequence is he came near the Red Sea, he traveled in the wilderness 
near the Red Sea with his family, and they traveled three days in the
wilderness before camping by a river.  Thus, there is no requirement that
Lehi reach the Red Sea within three days travel from Jerusalem.
    

>Nibley apparently overlooks this [the river], while Douglas
>seeks to replace it with an Egyptian canal. Either way, we still have
>great problems.

I think, Ed, that you are trying to uses the two articles in a way that the
authors never intended.  Neither author is trying to 'prove' the Book of
Mormon by showing 'plausible' explanations of Book of Mormon history.

Nibley's purpose is to discuss parallels between mid-east customs and Book
of Mormon customs.  As you and I both know, Ed, parallels do not 'prove'
anything.  Parallels are useful because they give indications that the
Book of Mormon history may not be as far fetched as critics claim and that
the critics may be extreme in their viewpoints.  I used the word "may",
because in using parallels, one can not be definite about conclusions and
observations.

Douglas' purpose was to discuss a different route that in a very general
sense satisfies the information given in the Book of Mormon.  He made it
very clear in his article that he was speculating.



>Nibley (in Allen's entry anyway) disregards it - so where
>is it? 

In your comment, Ed, you seem to be implying that Nibley disregarded the
river-problem because he couldn't explain it.  We need to keep in mind
that his purpose in his book was to discuss parallels between the
mid-east and the Book of Mormon, and in briefly discussing Lehi's route,
he wasn't concerned about the river; he was only concerned about the
parallel of Lehi traveling SSE and then going east, with the route down
the east side of the Red Sea and then east at the 19th parallel.


>Douglas would have us believe that the learned Lehi, who knows
>Egyptian - and presumably Egypt - so well that he prefers to record his
>family history in Egyptian rather than Hebrew, could mistake a commercial
>Egyptian canal for a river, even giving it a name.

I think, Ed, you are reading your own bias into the article.  Douglas
wouldn't have us believe anything about Lehi.  He is speculating about
parallels between the Book of Mormon and the route that he described, and
he made it clear that he was speculating.

In using the word "mistake" you are implying that Arabs and Hebrews did
not consider man-made canals to be the same as "rivers".  I would be
interested in any scholarly information you may have on that point.

Concerning Lehi naming the river, according to comments I have heard and
read in the past, that was a well-established custom.  I don't have any
references I can quote at the moment on this, but I'm sure that with a
little research that custom could be documented.


>Douglas also dates the
>beginning of its restoration at about the same time that Lehi is said to
>have left Jerusalem, yet Lehi somehow never encounters the workers, and
>finds this "canal" with so much water flowing through it that he thinks
>it's a river. This is not the picture of a canal in the early stages of
>restoration.

I think you are making some assumptions about how much work activity was
going on.  We don't know if the workers were working on the whole canal at
one time, or on pieces of it.  We don't know how many workers there were.
We don't know how likely it would have been for Lehi to camp at the canal
without being discovered by the workers.  We don't even know if the 
restoration had begun when Lehi left Jerusalem.  We don't know if the
canal carried water prior to the restoration, allowing for the possibility
that Lehi might have camped at the canal prior to the restoration.


>Furthermore, Douglas overlooks the fact that the area he
>mentions as the location of this canal is far too distant from Jerusalem
>to be reached in three days. 

As I mentioned above, Douglas specifically said the three days was after
they came to the Red Sea.  His statement was

   Lehi was commanded to take his family, leave his home and go into the
   wilderness. (1 Ne. 2:4)  After arriving in the "borders"--which may be the
   territorial borders between Egypt and the Babylonian Empire--near the shore
   of the Red Sea, Lehi and his family traveled for three more days and then
   pitched their tents in a valley by the side of a river of water.  The family
   spent some time camped in this valley, which Lehi named Lemuel.(1 Ne. 2:5-16)



>Douglas goes on to surmise that Lehi travelled in the African continent.
>Nibley states flatly that he did not. 

Again, both authors are discussing parallels between the mid-east and the
Book of Mormon, and neither author is attempting to give 'proof' of the
book.  Of course they differ--that is the nature of speculation.



>Thus we see that in attempting to justify a clearly impossible account
>from the Book of Mormon, Mormon apologists rather give us a confusion of
>conflicting speculation, none providing satisfactory or consistent
>answers to the sort of basic questions which deserve to be answered before
>one could be expected to take the Book of Mormon as a serious historical 
>account. 

LDS have always admitted that there are historical, archaeological, etc.
questions about the Book of Mormon that can not be answered at the present
time.  We believe that as time passes, such questions will be answered, and
we look forward to new discoveries in history and related fields that will
bring the answers.

We have always said that the Book of Mormon should not be considered as only a
historical account.  We give the book to the world with our claim that it is
a religious book, and we ask people to read it and ask God in prayer if it
is true.

From my way of thinking, the articles by Nibley and Douglas are important
for the following reason.  As quoted by you, Frazer made some very definite
and specific statements about the Book of Mormon, to the effect that the
story of Lehi's journey can in no way be true.  To him, the matter is
definite, and he didn't allow for any "maybe" or "possibly" or "might have"
to be considered.

Nibley and Douglas have pointed out through the use of parallels with the
mid-east and the Book of Mormon that perhaps the matter is not so closed after
all, that there may be other viewpoints about the journey that should be
considered, that perhaps we should be a little more open-minded than Frazer
seems to be.  Their parallels don't 'prove' anything, but they do indicate
(to me at least) that we should keep an open-mind about the matter and see what
the Lord in time and through scholarly research brings out.  

Allen

Regarding the question of rivers in Arabia, as it relates to the Book of Mormon
account of Lehi's family as they came upon a river that Lehi named after his
son, Laman, Hugh Nibley, wrote the following: 
                               
    Rivers or no rivers?
    --------------------
    
    Before leaving the subject of waters, it would be well to note that
    Nephi's mention of a river in a most desolate part of Arabia has caused
    a good deal of quite unnecessary eyebrow-raising. Though Hogarth says
    that Arabia "probably never had a true river in all its immense area,"
    (Footnote 54) later authorities, including Philby, are convinced that
    the peninsula has supported some quite respectable rivers even in
    historic times. 
    
    Spring of the Year
    ------------------
    
    The point to notice, however, is that Lehi made his discovery in the
    spring of the year, for Nephi's story begins "in the commencement of
    the first year of the reign of Zedekiah," (1:4) and moves very rapidly;
    with the Jews and "in the Bible throughout the 'first month' always
    refers to the first spring month." (Footnote 55) In the spring the
    desert mountains are full of rushing torrents. 
    
    "Rivers of Waters" = Dry Rivers
    -------------------------------
    
    The very fact that Nephi uses the term "a river of water," to say
    nothing of Lehi's ecstasies at the sight of it, shows that they are
    used to thinking in terms of *dry* rivers -- the "rivers of sand" of
    the East (Footnote 56). The Biblical expression "rivers of water"
    illustrates the point nicely, for the word for "river" in this case is
    none of the conventional ones but the rare *apheg*, meaning gully or
    channel; in one of the three instances where "rivers of waters" are
    mentioned in the Bible, the river is actually dried up (Joel 1:20), in
    another they contain not water but tears (Joel 3:18)! and in the third
    (Song 5:12) the proper rendering, as in all modern translations, is
    "water-brooks." One only speaks of "rivers of water" in a country where
    rivers do not run all the time. But in the spring it is by no means
    unusual to find rivers in the regions through which Lehi was moving, as
    a few examples will show. 
                              
    Examples of Arabian Rivers
    --------------------------
    
    "We...descended...into Wady Waleh. Here was a beautiful seil, quite a
    little river, dashing over the rocky bed and filled with fish.... The
    stream is a very pretty one... bordered by thickets of flowering
    oleaders. Here and there it narrows into a deep rushing torrent...."
    (Footnote 57) Describing the great wall that runs, like our Hurricane
    fault in Utah, all along the east side of the Dead Sea, the Arabah, and
    the Red Sea, an earlier traveler says: "Farther south the country is
    absolutely impassable, as huge gorges one thousand to fifteen hundred
    feet deep and nearly a mile wide in some places [compare Lehi's "awful
    chasm"!] are broken by the great torrents flowing in winter over
    perpendicular precipices into the sea." (Footnote 58) The sea is the
    Dead Sea, but the same conditions continue all down the great wall to
    "the borders which are near the Red Sea." One is reminded of how
    impressed Lehi was when he saw the river of Laman "flowing into the
    fountain of the Red Sea." On the desert road to Petra in the springtime
    "there are several broad streams to pass, the fording of which creates
    a pleasant excitement." (Footnote 59) A party traveling farther north
    reports, "we presently came upon the deep Wady 'Allan, which here cuts
    the plain in two. How delightful was the splash and gurgle of the
    living water rushing over its rocky bed in the fierce heat of the
    Syrian day!" (Footnote 60) 
    
    Given the right season of the year, then -- and the Book of Mormon is
    obliging enough to give it -- one need not be surprised at rivers in
    northwestern Arabia. It was this seasonal phenomenon that led Ptolemy
    to place a river between Yambu and Meccah with perfect correctness.
    (Footnote 61) 
                               
    Canal or River?
    ---------------
    
    That invaluable researcher and indefatigable sleuth, Ariel L. Crowley,
    has suggested with considerable astuteness that the river of Laman was
    a very different kind of stream from the "rivers of water" of which we
    have been speaking, being nothing less than Necho's canal from the Nile
    to the Red Sea. (Footnote 62) The greater part of Brother Crowley's
    study is devoted to proving that there was such a canal, but that is no
    issue, since it is not disputed. What we cannot believe is that the big
    ditch was Laman's river, and that for a number of reasons of which we
    need here give only two. 
    
    1) While noting that Nephi's account of the exodus "is so precisely
    worded that it bears the stamp of deliberate, careful phrasing,"
    Crowley fails to note that nothing is more precise and specific than
    Nephi's report on the direction of the march, and that, as we have
    seen, he never mentions a westerly direction, which must have been
    taken to reach the place. Brother Crowley assumes that "into the
    wilderness" means "by the Wilderness Way" to Egypt, first "for the sake
    of hypothesis," then, without proof, as a fact. There is no expression
    commoner in the East than "into the wilderness," which of course is not
    restricted to any such area. The last place in the world to flee from
    the notice of men would be to the border of Egypt, fortified and
    closely guarded (see the Story of Sinuhe); and Lehi as a member of the
    anti-Egyptian party would be the last man in the world to seek refuge
    in Egypt. 
    
    2) Crowley calls Necho's canal a "mighty stream," and says that it lay
    "at the ancient crossroads of continents, perhaps as well-known as any
    place on earth in 600 B.C." Then why wasn't it known to Lehi? It was
    the greatest engineering triumph of the age, the most important purely
    commercial waterway in the world; it lay astride the most traveled
    highway of antiquity if not of history; reached by a few days' journey
    from Jerusalem over a level coastal plain, it was the only great river
    anywhere near Jerusalem except for the Nile of which it was a branch,
    and yet "the stream was *unknown* to Lehi (!), otherwise it was
    improbable that he would have given it a new name. In this very fact,"
    says Crowley, "lies confirmation of the recent creation of the stream."
    Just how long does it take news to travel in the East? The canal was at
    least ten years old, it had taken years to build, a wonder of the
    world, an inestimable boon to world trade, less than two hundred miles
    from Lehi's doorstep by a main highway, and yet at a time of ceaseless
    and feverish coming and going between Egypt and Palestine, neither
    Lehi, the great merchant with his sound Egyptian education, nor his
    enterprising and ambitious sons, had ever heard of it! It is impossible
    to believe that Lehi did not know that if one traveled towards Egypt
    and came across a *mighty* stream in a perfectly empty desert, it would
    not be some unknown and undiscovered watercourse but really quite an
    important one. If anyone knew about Necho's canal, it was Lehi. But we
    agree with Crowley that the river of Laman was obviously *not* known to
    him. Therefore the two cannot have been the same. "No river answering
    the description of Nephi's could have escaped historical notice in
    profane works," says Crowley. Why not? It escaped Lehi's notice,
    steeped as he was in the lore of Egyptians and Jews. It cannot
    therefore have been an important stream, let alone one of the most
    remarkable on earth, or Lehi would have known about it. Nor does Nephi
    ever say or imply that it was a great river; it was not a waterway at
    all, but a "river of water," which is a very different thing. 
    
    Footnotes:
    
    54 Hogarth, Penetration of Arabia, p.3
    55 Yahuda, Accuracy of the bible, p.201
    56 Cf. Burton, Pilg. to Al-Madinah, etc., p.72, n. 1.
    57 E.H., in Surv. of Wstn. Palest. Spec. Papers, p. 67f.
    58 C.R. Conder, in PEFQ 1875, p. 130f.
    59 Hill, "Journey to Petra, "PEFQ 1897, p.144.
    60 W. Ewing, "Journey in the Hauran," PEFQ 1895, p.175
    61 Burton, Pilg. to Al-Madinah, etc. II, 154.
    62 Ariel L. Crowley, "Lehi's River Laman," Improvement Era, Vol.
       44 (Jan., 1944), pp.14ff.

    From Lehi in the Desert, Pages 91-95 (Subheadings added)