In Lehi’s dream in 1 Nephi 8, he saw a river of water flowing by the great and spacious building, and saw that many drowned in it as they left the straight and narrow path and wandered into forbidden paths. Nephi later sees a version of this dream in 1 Nephi 11 and 12, where he shares a detail in 1 Nephi 12:16 that he did not record in 1 Nephi 8: “And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the fountain of filthy water
which thy father saw; yea, even the river of which he spake; and the
depths thereof are the depths of hell.”
This vision with a deadly river of filthy water occurred while Lehi and his family dwelt in the Valley of Lemuel (1 Nephi 9:1), a place with a river of pure water that Lehi named the River Laman, a miraculous place for which a fabulous candidate has been discovered in Wadi Tayyib al-Ism, a site first discovered by George Potter and buttressed as a candidate with further exploration of Warren Aston, as I discussed in a recent post.
Now Warren Aston has kindly pointed out that the Google Maps page for user-provided content on that location shows an interesting video recently posted in Dec. 2019 showing what can happen to the small stream/river that flows continually in the great Valley of Lemuel candidate after there has been rain elsewhere. If that link doesn’t show a video, try this. At the moment, I don’t see a way to display the video directly here, but it’s impressive. A terrifying flood of filthy water clearly rich in dirt and sand is sweeping through the peaceful wadi and carrying everything in its path straight into the Red Sea. Lehi, who may have spent many months if not years in this incredible and habitable place that is still uninhabited to this day as it was in his, may have experienced first hand just how deadly a river of filthy water can be.
Here’s a thumbnail of one frame of the video:
![]() |
Portion of a video recording a Dec 2019 flood at Wadi Tayyib al-Ism,
a solid candidate for the Valley of Lemuel in the Book of Mormon. |
Here’s a view from a few seconds later, pretty much the same:
![]() |
Another screen shot. |
Many thanks to Warren Aston for sharing this interesting find.
Flash floods like this are common in arid regions all over the world.
— OK
As they say, " A picture (or, better yet, a video!) is worth a thousand words." Thanks for sharing!
Yes, flash floods in arid regions happen in many arid regions, Utah included. The interesting thing is the location, an impressive valley with a continually flowing river of water (long said by our critics to be ridiculous and impossible) in just the right place to align with the Valley of Lemuel. That's the cool thing. The fact that it's in a place that can also turn into a dangerous river of "filthy water" just adds a little color to Lehi's dream that he shared with his family in this location.
Also incredible that Joseph Smith Sr would actually sell this very same story along with blessings to passersby. And that there was a canal and several rivers nearby where the Smiths lived. Really makes you think, eh?
Anon, is your point that Joseph got the idea for the River Laman, a seemingly impossible continually flowing river/stream in the Arabian Peninsula in just the right location (3 days travel by camel south from the northern tip of the Golf of Aqaba), by looking at the Erie Canal or local rivers? Can you flesh out that theory a little more because from my vantage point, it seems to completely miss the point of what the River of Laman is and how significant Wadi Tayyib al-Ism is. You realize that Arabia is not upstate New York and that the presence of rivers or canals in New York gives no guidance about the geography of Arabia, right? Or am I missing something?
I would encourage everyone to look at google maps and see this “river” in for themselves. Appears pretty dry to me.
Wadi Tayyib Al Ism
49753, Saudi Arabia
https://goo.gl/maps/AurVHKUytdBZsuXZ7
Also, according to google maps, this wadi is 452 km from Jerusalem, which is 280 miles. That’s 93 miles per day—quite a clip, especially with no roads.
seems about right for camel travel, thanks for confirming the distance:
"These camels can travel 80 to 120 miles per day carrying a rider."
http://www.allsinai.info/sites/fauna/camel.htm
Steve
Steve,
You forgot to include the info just before your quote. Your quote in context is:
“The name ‘Dromedary’ is properly reserved for the Arabian racing camel such as those used in the various military camel corps. These camels can travel 80 to 120 miles per day carrying a rider.”
Note they mention in that article as well that “Arabian baggage camels are heavier build and capable of carrying a 200 kg load up to 40 miles per day.”
Also note that when Lehi “had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.” They were carrying baggage in addition to riders. They’d be going much slower than “racing camels” that were “carrying a [lone] rider.”
Note also that there were multiple tents—and these aren’t lightweight backpacking tents. When Nephi and his brothers return for the plates: “And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.”
A camel train carrying tents, supplies, etc. would more likely travel closer to foot speed, at least according to Wikipedia: https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_train
— OK
Great post Jeff.
Ok, the travel wasn’t necessarily 3 days from Jerusalem, but 3 days in the wilderness after they were near the Red Sea. Then, interestingly, they pitched their tents. Remember they were on the run from critics 😊.
“… departed into the wilderness … 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…when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent”
So, gonna have to side with Jeff again, sorry, keep hoping I can agree with you so i can appear to be open minded but I don’t wanna sacrifice integrity. Maybe you could try opening up to new ideas 😊
Joe,
If you reread the verses carefully, you’ll note that the cumulative journey in the wilderness was stated to be 3 days. We’re told Lehi then pitched his tent in a valley.
Verse 2–commanded to depart into the wilderness
Verse 4–he departed into the wilderness (repeated twice)
Verse 5–he’s in the wilderness (already departed twice in verse 4), then we have a repetitive description of where he traveled (much like the repetition of his departure): borders near the shore of the Red Sea, which is the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea, and he traveled in the wilderness with his family. All of this occurred after he departed into the wilderness in verse 4.
Verse 6–he pitches his tent after “he had traveled three days in the wilderness.”
Joe, I said nothing about the distance traveled by Lehi. Why are you addressing your argument to me?
—OK
This comment has been removed by the author.
I see, so you were simply commenting on speed so we’d all know they could have walked for 3 days in the area and arrived at the valley and river as the BofM indicates. 😊😊👍🏼So I CAN agree with you! Yay.
Also, Jeff makes an excellent point about the filthy river. As we’ve discussed, the Lord tends to work through the culture and minds of humans. If I remember correctly, JS Sr. had a tree of life dream with a rope etc. helping guide. The symbols were at home in 19th C America. Nephi and Lehi’s dream with: iron rod, chasm, desert waste, cultivated field, white virgin tree, etc. was at home in the ancient Middle East.
Interestingly, the Mayan Tree of Life is far more like Lehi’s than JS Sr.’s. Thus adding to the evidence for cultural contacts.
Oh, did I forget to mention the river…😂.
In Nephi’s dream there is a pure river and also a filthy raging river, as Jeff noted. Most of darkness arise (perhaps from a raging storm) and the river is raging, sweeping death down to the underworld. I don’t think Joseph Sr. had this combo, but, of course, you guessed it….the Maya do.
“the river is raging”
This detail brought to you by Joe Peaceman (a detail not found in the BoM).
Joe please do us all a favor and explain the ending of your 8:05 comment. What are you implying?
Yeah, Joe. Go on about the Mayans. I'd like to hear what you have to say and then compare it to what your church now says in the essays on their website that the members don't seem to care about. Have you read them?
Only an idiot would fall for Jeff's manipulative follow up questions. Way to talk down to people, Brother Lindsay. Have you noticed it's getting harder for you to control the conversation with this tactic? Most just move right on and keep shoveling on the evidence against your claims without even bothering to entertain your lame attempts at manipulation. We can see through it.
Lots of cultures have tree of life stories. Look it up.
Joseph Smith, Sr. told the exact story of this vision around the dinner table long before Joseph Jr put it in a book. Look it up.
It's obvious where all of this really came from: Joseph (AND OTHERS) imaginations and collective anecdotes and sources. The only other excuse (it's ALL a convenient miracle!) is less and less believable the more you examine the actual details recorded and available at the time.
Go ahead and ask some ad-hominem, disingenuous follow up questions now, Jeff. I'll get back to you on them as soon as I can.
Ad hominem? You said that Joseph got the idea for the River Laman from the Erie Canal or local rivers. I didn't say anything offensive about your background, heritage, politics, or whatever — you're being totally anonymous here, so I'm only responding to the merits of your arguments, not to whoever or whatever you are. To point out that your argument is weak is not an ad hominem attack, even if it makes you feel bad. Ad hominem attacks are about calling people names rather than confronting the merits of an argument. But I'm only criticizing the lack of merit in your suggestion that Joseph got the River Laman from the Erie Canal. It's a ridiculous notion — but I did not say you are a bad person, a ridiculous person, a Climate Denier, a pagan, or anything else.
Please note that the evidence that makes the candidate for the River Laman so interesting isn't that it's just a generic river that everyone has seen, but a river in a specific place that our critics for decades have said doesn't have rivers and thus could not exist — but there it is. It's small, but has been verified to flow all year round and has fruit and other plants growing in its valley. It's 3 days south of the beginning of the Gulf of Aqaba. The way this place was found was by following the directions of 1 Nephi 2, which George Potter and others interpreted to mean three days after they began traveling in the wilderness near the Red Sea, not three days from Jerusalem.
1 Nephi 2:5,6 tell us that after Lehi left Jerusalem to travel in the wilderness, he then "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… 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."
There is ambiguity here in his meaning (is he counting the travel in the wilderness in vs. 6 relative to the immediately mentioned travel in the wilderness near the Red Sea, or back to the earlier departure from Jerusalem into the wilderness? Taking it as a three-day count from the encounter with the Red Sea mentioned just before his three day reference, as Potter did, and using conventional camel speed with full days, then we have a roughly 75-mile journey distance to reach the Valley of Lemuel from the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, which works out quite well. I suppose it would be even easier (requiring a slower pace) if the three day count began when they began traveling in the borders/mountains "nearer" the Red Sea. In any case, three days from Jerusalem would be too far. Potter's plausible reading of Nephi's record allows Lehi to reach the River of Laman.
Yes, there were probably more than one tent and tents aren't light. There was also food and supplies. But a pack of camels can carry burdens and people on journeys into the wilderness without any impossible-to-overcome problems, and the seemingly impossible river can actually be reached without having to scale cliffs or anything else except roll down the right wadi as a detour on a plausible and not unusually difficult trip. And it meets multiple criteria from the text for this miraculous, still uninhabited place. The river is small and you may not see it from Google Maps — it was long thought that no such stream existed in northwestern Arabia. But the field work has been done with ample video and photographic footage, including some shots Aston adds in the publication I cite in this post. It's there.
By the way, Potter observed that Lehi's travel near the "borders" might refer to the mountainous region around the Red Sea, given that the Hebrew cognate for "border" in Arabic means "mountain". A possibility. The River Laman is certainly near the borders and mountains of the Red Sea in any case with its massive 1000-foot granite cliffs rising steeply from near sea level.
OK, the Wikipedia article refers to some long distance treks with camels across Mongolia noting that the pace was typically from 10 to 25 miles per day. But it then notes that with fresher camels and smaller loads (as in loads distributed across more camels), greater distances may be possible. Lehi's was likely using fresh camels upon leaving Jerusalem. We don't know how loads were distributed, but even the long-distance Mongolian pace includes up to 25 miles per day, which is the figure Potter used in determining where the limits must be for a plausible Valley of Laman. But based on freshness of the camels and the possible urgency of Lehi's escape from his personal enemies from Jerusalem, it's likely that they were going relatively fast initially. 25 miles per day ought to count as plausible for a camel-powered escape.
You’re assuming camels—a detail never mentioned in the entire account of Lehi’s exodus.
Right, Anon @8:19, as mentioned, it's ambiguous, with two or three ways one can interpret the distance of the three-day's of travel in the wilderness (the most recently mentioned wilderness near the Red Sea, beginning with the Red Sea encounter, which works, or the slightly later journeying in wilderness in the border "nearer the Red Sea," or the general journey into the wilderness starting at Jeruslam). But a plausible reading of the 1 Nephi 2:6 of three days travel after the encounter with the Red Sea gives us a range of about 75 miles from the beginning of the Gulf of Aqaba to find the River Laman, and the incredible candidate for the very place predicted by the Book of Mormon is actually there. Doesn't that count for something? At least a lucky guess for Joseph? Or evidence at least that he had a really amazing secret map to guide his development of the Lehi's Trail project?
Really, if Joseph were just making things up based on the Erie Canal and other things in his environment, there would be no need for learned critics in 2020 to quibble about how to count the three days of travel before Lehi's encounter with an amazing and only recently discovered candidate for a place that nicely matches the Book of Mormon's description. A river in Arabia? No such thing. Fruit trees, grain, pure water flowing continually into the Red Sea? Absurd. And uninhabited, when it, like Bountiful, boasts a supply of the most previous resource in the region, water? Unthinkable. And yet there it is, still uninhabited, just as Khor Kharfot at Wadi Sayq is uninhabited to this day, in spite of its ample fresh water, fruit, trees, etc. If Joseph were making it up, there would be no candidates to quibble over. End of story. No need to nitpick about alternate readings to downplay the story — it would only become more ridiculous as we learned more about Arabia, not more surprisingly impressive in multiple ways.
Jeff, we agree on the camel question. My disagreement was with Steve’s claim of 80-120 miles per day.
As for the rest of your argument: much of what you do here on Mormanity is to seek out a constellation of conditions under which the Book of Mormon might plausibly be seen as a literal history.
Hence you say, in essence, that if the three day journey begins at the sea coast rather than Jerusalem, and if “borders” means “mountains,” and if “river” refers to a tiny streamlet, and if “emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea” means “sank into the ground before reaching the Red Sea,” etc. — if all these things obtain, then we have a bulls-eye.
If, if, if if if if. Sure, the whole thing appears ludicrous on its face. But if a whole bunch of things happen to be true, then the book could be true. We see this all the time in LDS apologetics. If “horse” means “tapir,” if “east” and “west” mean “northeast” and “southwest,” etc. Always this attempt to torture the plain meaning of the words into conformity with the apologetical argument du jour.*
This sort of thing might or might not be good apologetics — it seems to me more likely to discredit the faith than otherwise— but it’s not scholarship. It’s straining to justify a foregone conclusion.
—OK
*FWIW, this procedure would be helped mightily if we had the text in the original language, or even if we knew what that original language was, but alas we do not. Or maybe I should say that many apologetic claims are enabled by the absence of an original, without which we can’t fully test them. Such a pity the plates were not left here on earth. But oh, how convenient!
Jeff,
As you likely know, traditionally, anything outside of the holy city of Jerusalem is considered wilderness, both figuratively and literally. Have you ever noticed that for most of your theories to work, we are required to make an extraordinary (but plausible!) reading of the text? Why is that? Are things just so hard to understand? Meanings are so difficult to convey?
As for guessing correctly, for Joseph, it was a pretty safe assumption that within three days journey there should be some tributary entering the enormous body of water of the Red sea–even in a desert. If there isn’t, then it just takes an apologist to make a “plausible reading” for it to work.
Which leads us to the thought that I’m not sure what your definition of river is? The trickle seen in pictures available on Google Maps would hardly be considered a river, even by someone in the desert. There is no water visible from the satellite pictures. Lehi makes a wish that Lemueul’s righteousness would be as that river spilling into the Red Sea. The trickle seen in the pictures would make the comparison a paltry one.
Just noticed OKs response. As per usual, he made my argument, only much more eloquently.
Jeff's big list of ifs.
Hundreds of photos posted to Google Maps by tourists of Wadi Tayyib al-Ism seem to show water flowing continuously into the Red Sea. The volume of water flow varies. This video shows that sometimes it is A LOT OF WATER.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wadi+Tayyib+Al+Ism/@28.5598732,34.8021448,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e5!3m6!1sAF1QipNHTMhFXuTo5dmytLBlzECT6Fi85RW_XRt24809!2e10!3e10!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNHTMhFXuTo5dmytLBlzECT6Fi85RW_XRt24809%3Dw203-h369-k-no!7i352!8i640!4m5!3m4!1s0x15ab3c3b5169300b:0xbb03a6a9811d6f60!8m2!3d28.5598732!4d34.8021448?hl=en
Have yet to see one with the sea and water flowing into it. Not saying it doesn’t happen but it seems uncommon. Based on the pictures, it appears the water sinks back into the ground before it gets too far.
Anon @2:14 has effectively nailed this coffin shut once and for all. Unless the apologists are demanding ground they'd NEVER give another. Case closed. Next idea, Jeff?
And Jay, you should look up basic information on the life of river systems. There's no self-respecting scientist who would dare claim we can learn a darn thing about a river's course hundreds of years ago merely from the satellite imagery of today. Just look at how the Mississippi has changed course over the last 150 years. You'd NEVER know it to look at it from space. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong. It'll be a waste of your time. Especially since the complete lack of camels to begin with effectively shuts this whole dumb argument right down.
And Jeff, regarding your insufferable wall of responses: I skipped those. Not worth my time for your nonsense, what with all the camels you're straining at.
Actually, supposed "apologist" give up massive ground all the time. That is exactly why they are so bent on finding obscure items to demand ground back.
Anyone that insists the Lamanites are not the principal ancestors of the Native Americans, is a "critic". That makes everyone a critic.
Jeff has long declared dearly held LDS beliefs as errant, making Jeff a massive critic. China declared they will change, but at their own pace, not overnight the way the soviet union collapsed. For some, the change movement of MLK was not fast enough and they favored the more radical calls of Malcolm X. Jeff is a critic that attacks those that favor a more immediate acceptance of truth, calling them "critics" with a derisive tone. It is just more the un-Christlike hate he struggles with.
Dromedary is the type of camel found on the Arabian peninsula and in Somalia. It is not a camel reserved for racing. The camel has 4 speeds; walk, jog, fast run, and canter. The most common speed for this camel is jog which it can do at a speed of 5 – 7.5 mph. This speed falls within the range of the distance from Jerusalem to the proposed river / valley site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary
Steve
Obstinacy seems to be a common trait of the North American blog poster named Steve.
Even a 10 hour day at 7.5mph would still leave you well short of the per day requirement.
We’ve already established that, if camels were used (it’s merely an assumption as the BoM makes no mention of them), they had to have carried loads as well as riders (tents, supplies, etc—details that were mentioned in the BoM). The speeds you are referring to are camels carrying riders only. Below are more realistic figures based on loads being carried, not just people. Note the source references your preferred dromedary and its ability to carry a load:
“Short bursts of 65 km (40 miles) per hour are possible, but camels are excellent plodders. Bactrian camels can carry more than 200 kg (about 440 pounds) for 50 km (31 miles) in a day, while the more lightly built dromedaries can carry up to 100 kg (about 220 pounds) for 60 km (about 37 miles) if they are worked in the coolness of night.”
https://www.britannica.com/animal/camel
OK writes, "Hence you say, in essence, that if the three day journey begins at the sea coast rather than Jerusalem, and if “borders” means “mountains,” and if “river” refers to a tiny streamlet, and if “emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea” means “sank into the ground before reaching the Red Sea,” etc. — if all these things obtain, then we have a bulls-eye. If, if, if if if if."
Sigh. OK, I know you are compelled to object to all things LDS, but I hope you'll step back and reconsider what you are saying, You are missing some very basic things. In fact, OK, your argument is seriously quite iffy.
A Semitic relationship between "borders" and "mountains" is not needed for the River Laman to be significant evidence for authenticity of the text. It's an interesting side issue that, IF correct, adds some further granularity to the text. But our more vague concept of "borders" works as well.
"If a river could mean a stream" is not an if, but a certainty. A common Hebrew word for "river" also means "stream": Strong's H5104, nahar. Even for English speakers, one should be able to imagine that in a dessert nation where water is rare, what we North Americans might call a stream can do just fine as a river. Even Utah's River Jordan is a mere stream in states where moisture is more plentiful.
The flowing into the fountain of the Red Sea for a stream descending into the earth adjacent to the Red Sea is not needed for the argument either, but is a subtlety that may add further granularity and interest. Given that the area is likely dryer than it was in the past and that the water now is already being partially diverted, it's likely that the stream was stronger in the past and could have gone further. Whether directly flowing into the Red Sea or disappearing into its shore or adjacent terrain, it's clear it flows into the Red Sea/ fountain of the Red Sea. There's no problem. No if's, and's or but's.