The intent of my investigation into the Book of Mormon geography was to create a map. It is that clear and simple. It had to be a map that had the geographical features discussed in the Book of Mormon - all of them, not just some of them. The map should then have cities, lands (polities), rivers, lakes, waters, fountains, seas, valleys, ridges, passes, hills, mountains, wildernesses, and plains. For the map to be accurate, each of the places and features should be in proper relation to each other. This means the directions to and from each place from all other places should be as they are described in the Book of Mormon.

Part of the problem included trying to determine just what information was useful to create a map. The Book of Mormon consists of 8,701 verses containing 267,851 words. The problem was trying to determine what information was actually useful to create a map. After identifying every verse that had some kind of geographical information, I ended up with 530 marked verses, 445 verses discussed geography in the New World and 91 discussed geography in the Old World. Some verses contained geographical information about places in both the New and Old Worlds, hence adding 445 and 91 total more than 530. Verses with duplicate or repeated information are not included in the 530 verses.

The next step was to identify, by name, every land, city, river, body of water, hill, and plain. After recognizing the significance of the term "over" meaning a ridge or elevated terrain (see the Discoveries section), I then identified every ridge that was mentioned. The result was the 173 New World places and 75 Old World places mentioned in the Internal Map Commentary.

The Book of Mormon provides additional geographical information about place names that are not specifically stated for each place, but rather the practice of how places were named. One such practice is the practice of the Nephites to name the primary city in each land the same name as the land. For example, in Alma 6:8 [8:7], "Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi, to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them; and thus it was with the land of Ammonihah" and, in Alma 22:15 [50:14], "And they also began a foundation for a city between the city of Moroni and the city of Aaron, joining the borders of Aaron and Moroni; and they called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah." This last verse confirms the practice where Nephihah refers to the name of both the city and the land. By practice, each land should contain a city by the same name, even if the city is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Information about the relative position of two places (north, south, east, or west of each other) or if they were next to each other or far apart made assemling the internal map like a jigsaw puzzle. Certain pieces were put together in small groups, then these groups of pieces were put together into larger groups until the whole map was assembled.

I want to stress that the internal map was created first and the world location external map was not created until a year after the internal map. The internal map does not use any information except that which is contained in the Book of Mormon. This differs from many geography theories that start with places in the real world and then try to fit the Book of Mormon into it. Personally, since archeaologists know only 3 original names for over 4,000+ archeological sites in Mesoamerica, picking world places and then putting the Book of Mormon geography on top of those places is unfounded, however the best intentions may be.

The intent of my investigation into the Book of Mormon geography was to create a map. It is that clear and simple. It had to be a map that had the geographical features discussed in the Book of Mormon - all of them, not just some of them. The map should then have cities, lands (polities), rivers, lakes, waters, fountains, seas, valleys, ridges, passes, hills, mountains, wildernesses, and plains. For the map to be accurate, each of the places and features should be in proper relation to each other. This means the directions to and from each place from all other places should be as they are described in the Book of Mormon.

Part of the problem included trying to determine just what information was useful to create a map. The Book of Mormon consists of 8,701 verses containing 267,851 words. The problem was trying to determine what information was actually useful to create a map. After identifying every verse that had some kind of geographical information, I ended up with 530 marked verses, 445 verses discussed geography in the New World and 91 discussed geography in the Old World. Some verses contained geographical information about places in both the New and Old Worlds, hence adding 445 and 91 total more than 530. Verses with duplicate or repeated information are not included in the 530 verses.

The next step was to identify, by name, every land, city, river, body of water, hill, and plain. After recognizing the significance of the term "over" meaning a ridge or elevated terrain (see the Discoveries section), I then identified every ridge that was mentioned. The result was the 173 New World places and 75 Old World places mentioned in the Internal Map Commentary.

The Book of Mormon provides additional geographical information about place names that are not specifically stated for each place, but rather the practice of how places were named. One such practice is the practice of the Nephites to name the primary city in each land the same name as the land. For example, in Alma 6:8 [8:7], "Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi, to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them; and thus it was with the land of Ammonihah" and, in Alma 22:15 [50:14], "And they also began a foundation for a city between the city of Moroni and the city of Aaron, joining the borders of Aaron and Moroni; and they called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah." This last verse confirms the practice where Nephihah refers to the name of both the city and the land. By practice, each land should contain a city by the same name, even if the city is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Information about the relative position of two places (north, south, east, or west of each other) or if they were next to each other or far apart made assemling the internal map like a jigsaw puzzle. Certain pieces were put together in small groups, then these groups of pieces were put together into larger groups until the whole map was assembled.

I want to stress that the internal map was created first and the world location external map was not created until a year after the internal map. The internal map does not use any information except that which is contained in the Book of Mormon. This differs from many geography theories that start with places in the real world and then try to fit the Book of Mormon into it. Personally, since archeaologists know only 3 original names for over 4,000+ archeological sites in Mesoamerica, picking world places and then putting the Book of Mormon geography on top of those places is unfounded, however the best intentions may be.

My reason for investigating the Book of Mormon geography was that I could not find a map that accurately portrayed the information in the Book of Mormon. The maps were inaccurate because their authors included their subjective biases and I could tell that the biases made their maps inaccurate.

For any two places on a map, there are two pieces of information that describe the relationship of one place to the other. One piece describes one place as north or south of the other place. The other piece of information describes one place as east or west of the other. A visual way to show these relationships is to draw a line between the two places. If there are 3 places, there are 3 lines (or 6 relationships). For 4 places, there are 6 lines that connect all 4 places (12 relationships). For 5 places, 10 lines connect each place (20 relationships).

There are 173 geographical places (e.g. lands, cities, plains, wildernesses, etc.) described for the New World. This means there are 14,878 lines or 29,756 possible relationships that can be stated for these places. If someone creates a map with just 50 places, they are only working with 2,450 relationships (or 8% of the total possible). In other words, there may be something in the remaining 92% of the relationships that they do not include on their map that would require them to move some of the places on their map to other locations in order to accommodate a new place on the map. Leaving places off a map (meaning the map that is created is likely inaccurate) is just one problem found with other maps.

The way to determine if an author's map is the best it can be is to count how many places they include on their map. Unless they describe over 122 places in the new world, their map has less than a 50% chance of having the correct relationships.

Here are some other problems that geography can have.

Lack of Scientific Methods Errors

Many articles and books about the geography are not written by people using any kind of scientific method to determine the locations of each place. The error that occurs when someone is not using scientific methods is that the author introduces their own biases and opinions. Biases and opinions are not facts; hence, they only serve to confuse the facts that are present. Their opinions may ultimately turn out to be correct or incorrect, but for now, they cannot be proved right or wrong. Some wording that identifies biases and opinions are "possible," "possibly," "probable," "probably," "likely," "would," "could," "may," and "maybe." Other statements of bias or opinion are not so easily identified. In some cases, some authors state opinions as if they were facts. Be suspicious of any author that does not describe the method they used to create their map.

World Location First Errors

There is a category of articles and books that focus on a specific place in the world first before analyzing the entire geography available in the Book of Mormon. They typically use a few place names and features from the Book of Mormon to provide a cursory fit to some place in the world. The rest of the Book of Mormon geography is then based on the geography of the part of the world that was selected. The error with this approach is that if the first few places are not placed in the right world location, the rest of the map ends up not making any sense. The map may become skewed or it becomes impossible to add all of the places. The author then usually contradicts himself or herself trying to explain why some things don't fit or just leaves places out of their description when they don't fit.

One way to tell that the article or book suffers from this error is when the author introduces new place names that are not in the Book of Mormon. Or, they may use the same place name to mean two different places. A common example that I have seen of adding a place is adding a place called the West Sea North when people have tried to fit the geography to Mesoamerica. Now, there is no place referenced in the Book of Mormon to anything other than a west sea and an east sea. For some skewed maps, authors have needed to add a sea between the west and east seas to account for the skewing and justify statements made in the Book of Mormon. They then have to specify (using their opinions) when a verse mentions the west sea as to whether the verse is referring to the "West Sea" or the "West Sea North." I have also seen a number of articles and books that split a place in two and put it in two different locations. If you ever read a description of the geography where any place name describes two different locations, you have found a description that suffers from this type of error. I always enjoy reading their explanation about why it is necessary to put the same place name in two different locations in order to justify their map and how they determine which verses apply to one place rather than the other place with the same name.

Archaeological Errors

Some articles and books try to fit the places in the Book of Mormon with known archaeological sites. The error with this approach is that statistical probability is against having found any more than a few sites that might be places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. At this time, there have been no archaeological sites that have been conclusively identified as being a city in the Book of Mormon, any connection between a Book of Mormon place and an archaeological site is pure opinion.

When an author tries to fit more than a few known archaeological sites with Book of Mormon places, the statistical probability that they are right is miniscule. Based on estimates from a number of sources, fewer than 20% of the archaeological sites have been found and studied in Mesoamerica. More archaeological sites are found than are studied each year, so the percent of the total number of archaeological sites studied so far (when and if all are found) is lower than 20%. Most sites are studied for a very short period of time and only a small percentage of the site is studied. Unless a site can be protected continuously, the countries in Mesoamerica typically require an archaeological dig to cover up their site after studying it as a way to prevent looters from destroying the site. Many sites are destroyed by looters and will never be studied by scientists. The estimate is as high as 50% of sites in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Costa Rica have been destroyed beyond any useful scientific value. Also in Mesoamerica, the sites found are mostly Mayan and from a time period later than the setting of the Book of Mormon, so the number of sites that are studied that correspond to the dates of occupation by the peoples in the Book of Mormon are just a fraction of the total sites studied. Also, trying to say that Mayan cities correspond to Book of Mormon cities makes the assumption that the Mayans reused Book of Mormon cities rather than using their own locations. Even if this were the case, then over time, the inhabitants would eventually dismantle, wear out, or build over any features that could be used to identify the location as a Book of Mormon location. Combining these percentages of percentages quickly results in a very low probability that any archaeological sites could be related to Book of Mormon places.

Small Number of Places Errors

Some articles and books only describe the locations of a small number of the Book of Mormon places. The error with this approach is that the locations of the places used are not verified by all of the relationships stated in the Book of Mormon. It is easy to assemble a few places into a logical-sounding geography. However, including additional places can force changes in the arrangement of these places.

English Grammar Errors

Some sources use English grammar, idioms, and colloquialisms to make assumptions about the meanings of verses. The error that occurs is the author is interpreting the Book of Mormon incorrectly. Just because the Book of Mormon was translated into English words does not mean that the translation translated Hebrew grammar, idioms, and colloquialisms into English grammar, idioms, and colloquialisms. The Book of Mormon was not written using English but using Hebrew. That can't be stressed enough. Even if the language used by the Nephites changed over time, they certainly did not use English grammar since the English language did not exist at the time the Book of Mormon was written.

This error is due to not paying attention to the exactness of the wording in the Book of Mormon. An example is trying to equate the "land Northward", the "north countries", and "land north" as the same place. The information in the Book of Mormon identifies these three references as three different places, not one, even though English grammar may allow interpreting these phrases as the same place. Another example is the phrase "many waters." In English, this is interpreted as being plural and meaning more than one body of water. In Hebrew, it is used to describe one or more bodies or water. The key difference between the two languages being "one." To use the English interpretation invites real problems in interpreting the geography. The practice of putting north on the top of a map did not occur until the 1600's. Early maps had west pointing up, east pointing up, and even south pointing up. Any author that uses "up" to mean "north" is suffering from an English grammar error.

Statements made by authors based on interpreting the Book of Mormon using English grammar are sometimes hard to notice; especially if English is the language the reader uses the most. The way to prevent this error from occurring is to start with the assumption that the wording in the Book of Mormon is very exact. If the words in two phrases are different, then something about what is being said is different. The ability to state that two closely related terms mean the same thing should only come after proving that the Book of Mormon grammar uses the different terms to mean the same thing.

Alternative Source Errors

Some articles and books use information from sources other than the Book of Mormon to interpret the geography in the Book of Mormon. Since no archaeological evidence has confirmed the location of any Book of Mormon place, any information about Book of Mormon places from a source other than the Book of Mormon would also not provide any evidence to their locations. The error that occurs here is that the author is using unsubstantiated information to prove their point. Making statements using information from outside of the Book of Mormon amounts to nothing more than introducing a bias or opinion in a way that looks like a fact.

Logic Errors

Some sources that describe the geography use incorrect logic in statements that they make. The error that occurs is just plainly making wrong statements. An example would be saying that since both an apple and an orange are fruits, that an apple is an orange. Another logic error is assuming that if something was not stated, that it never happened. For example, the following statement contains a logic error, "But river travel on the Sidon is not mentioned once in the Book of Mormon implying that it was not practiced among the Nephites, so this actually lends support to the Reventazon River [being the river Sidon]." The fallacy of the logic used here is assuming that if something is not stated that it never happened. With a few exceptions, the Book of Mormon never actually states how people traveled from one location another, just that they traveled from one place to another. We might assume they walked, but nothing is mentioned about using carts, boats, riding animals, or they may have used more than one method of travel for different parts of the journey.

Here is a list of logical fallacies. It is not a comprehensive list, but it begins to show how many possibilities there are for logic errors.

1. Ad Hominem. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason. An example is to attack another person's political views in order to justify that what they are saying is wrong.
2. Appeal to Authority. If an expert makes a statement, it must be true. However, experts can be wrong on occasions. If the person is an expert, they will provide the facts to support their statement. If the facts are true and the expert has not stated a logical fallacy, then their statement is likely true.
3. Appealing to Common Beliefs. If most people believe a statement to be true, then it must be true. If this were the case, then the world would still be flat.
4. Appealing to Force. Believe what I say or else. It is usually not that blunt, but you get the point. This is similar to appealing to the consequences of a belief. For example, you would be stupid to believe this to be true.
5. Appealing to Ignorance. If there are is a lack of evidence to support a statement, then it must be wrong. Or, if there is a lack of evidence against a statement, then it must be right.
6. Appealing to the Consequences of a Belief. If the consequences of a statement are bad, then the statement must be false. We don't like bad consequences, but they still happen anyway.
7. Complex Question. Trying to prove a complex statement with simple evidence. Some things are very complex. They cannot be proven right or wrong with just a few simple facts. For example, terrorism is a complex thing. Taking guns away from everyone would not eliminate terrorism.
8. Fallacy of Exclusion. Information against the statement is withheld. This is hiding evidence that might disprove the statement.
9. False Analogy. When two things are similar in some aspects, they must be similar in all aspects. If this were the case, all four-legged creatures should have a long trunk and tusks.
10. False Dilemma. Providing fewer choices than there are really options. A favorite example is to provide only two options to pick from when there are really three or more options available.
11. Hasty Generalization. Trying to prove a point with only a few examples.
12. Post Hoc. When two things happen one right after the other, the first thing must cause the second thing. However, there can be many reasons why the second thing happened.
13. Sweeping Generalization. Trying to turn a rule that has exceptions into a rule that has no exceptions. If this were the case, if birds can fly, then penguins could fly.