Questions and Answers - Book of Mormon Geography

Click here to submit a question

Many answers are provided in the Internal Map Commentary and Travel Maps. Please review these areas for additional answers.

Tap a question to see the answer:

Personal attestation of the material on this website
What theories exist for the Book of Mormon geography?
What assumptions were used to create the internal model?
Can both sides of the Yucatan peninsula have different sea names?
What about the sea north and sea south?
Can any ruins in Mesoamerica be linked to Book of Mormon cities?
Could Chinkultic be the city of Nephi?
Is Manti on the east or west side of the river Sidon?
Does the river Sidon flow north or south?
Why throw bodies into the river Sidon?
What is the geography of Chaldea?
Can the Hill Cumorah in New York be the same Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon?

1. Personal attestation of the material on this website.

What came first - the internal model or world-location (external) model? As stated in the "What is Geography?" section, the internal model was created first to prevent any bias from world locations mentioned by other theories. The purpose was to focus on what was contained in the Book of Mormon before looking for any place on the Earth that fits the geography specified by the Book of Mormon. Material for the internal model was copyrighted originally in 2004. The world location information was copyrighted originally starting in 2006.
My interest in pursuing the Book of Mormon is stated on the home page, "The primary purpose of this site is to be a study guide for the Book of Mormon." Other theories suffered logical inconsistencies and, in many instances, blatant inaccuracies that made following the actions described in the Book of Mormon hard to follow. The purpose of the internal model and travel maps is to help people follow the actions of the people described in the Book of Mormon.
I have no financial interests in the Book of Mormon geography or any activities (i.e. archeology) associated with geography. My primary interest is to help people understand what is contained in the Book of Mormon.
The material on this website is from my own investigations and are independent of any church publications or position.

2. There are many competing theories for the Book of Mormon geography. Here are answers to questions about this theory.

How many other theories have I reviewed?

I've reviewed the 70 theories in The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, John L. Sorenson 1992; A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies, John E. Clark, Farms Review: Volume 1, Issue 1, 1989; theories by Glenn Scott, John Sorenson, Joseph Allen, F. Richard Hauck, John Clark, E. L. Peay, Verneil Simmons, multiple internal models, authors supporting the North and South America models, Great Lakes Models, Mesoamerican models, South American models, Baja California models, Nicaragua models, Panama models, Malaysia models, and any other models and authors available on the internet. The "Geography Problems" section describes the problems found with these models. Some models had more problems than others.
When developing my internal model, I ignored all models and authors and concentrated solely on the information contained in the Book of Mormon.
I specifically developed the internal model first to prevent any bias about a world location affecting the model.

3. What were my hypotheses in developing the internal model? The hypotheses that I started with in order to determine the relative placement of each place were very close to those stated by John Clark, A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies:

The Book of Mormon states that the contents of the book are first-hand descriptions by the people that lived in the lands they were describing. If so, then as first-hand descriptions, the descriptions would be accurate. A first-hand account should be accurate without having to rely on any archaeological evidence. To prevent being biased by any archaeological evidence, this investigation uses the Book of Mormon as the sole document for determining the locations of the place names mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
The wording in the Book of Mormon was exact. Any differences in phrases were assumed to mean something different unless they could be proved that they were the same. English grammar allows for more than one way to say something. However, the Book of Mormon is not based on English grammar, so the grammar used was assumed to be important unless it could be proven that it was not important. For example, the phrases “land of the Nephi” and “land of Nephi” were considered to be different. A corollary to this is that if a phrase was used consistently, that consistency could be used to interpret information according to how the phrase was used. For example, if the term “thence” was consistently used to mean to leave one place to go to another, then any time where “thence” occurred meant that it always meant to leave one place to go to another. Another corollary is that the meanings of words were determined by how they are used in the Book of Mormon and not by their meanings in an English dictionary. For example, “borders” as used in the Book of Mormon was more consistent with the Hebrew meaning (i.e. gbwul – Strong’s 1366) than the definition in English dictionaries.
There was no duplication of place names unless there was information in the Book of Mormon that confirmed two different places had the same name. This means that the same place name could not appear in two different locations.
A place could be referred to by two different names only if it could be proved that the locations for each name were the same.
If there is insufficient information in the Book of Mormon to put a place in relation to other places, then the location is identified as having insufficient information to establish a location. They are placed on the map according to Occam’s Razor – to minimize the number of assumptions about their placement and also to prevent their locations from interfering with the locations of known places.
The lands should be capable of meeting requirements of polities (areas of political control, organization, and identity). Human history is the basis for this hypothesis. Human history concerning geography is simply a matter of what area a group of people controlled. A group of people typically does not control the same area that is controlled by another group. Disputes over territories are disputes over who will control the area. This means that lands in the Book of Mormon would not overlap unless an area was contested. This hypothesis does not preclude contested areas of overlaps between lands. The corollary to this hypothesis is if there was a conflict over an area between two lands, then the two lands were next to each other in order for both lands to claim the disputed area.
The sizes and spacing of the polities need to be consistent with the size references provided within the Book of Mormon.

4. Can the Gulf of Mexico on both sides of the Yucatan peninsula (Gulf of Honduras and Bay of Campeche) be considered two different seas?

It would take more evidence than what is mentioned in the Book of Mormon to support it. The Book of Mormon does not support this and examples from ancient societies does not support this. Also, there is no precendent that people living near a peninsula considered the waters on either side of the peninsula as two different bodies of water. Before 600 B.C., the people in the Middle East knew the Red Sea and Persian Gulf (as we call them today) were connected around the Arabian peninsula. Some populations even called the Persian Gulf the Red Sea as an extension of the Red Sea between Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Just because the two bodies of water have different names today does not mean that they were always considered to have two names. The Mayans had established sea canoe trade routes around the Yucatan peninsula that took only 2 to 3 days to travel from the Gulf of Honduras to the Bay of Campeche. They knew all the waters surrounding the peninsula were just one body of water. There might be local names for local parts of the waters (the Persian Gulf has had several names at the same time), but the people knew how the body of water connected to other waters.
Simply stated, if you start in any location in the Book of Mormon geography and head east, you will eventually run into the east sea.

5. What about the Sea North and Sea South?

See the discussion about the Sea North and Sea South in the Discoveries section.

6. Can any ruins in Mesoamerica be linked to Book of Mormon cities?

No ruins to date have been linked to Book of Mormon cities. There are over 4,000 registered archaeological sites in Mesoamerica. Many of these date after the Book of Mormon times. The current estimate is that fewer than 10% to 25% of the archaeological sites have been found. To give you an idea of just how many archaeological sites there are, surveyors, when they put a permanent survey marker in the ground, try (or are required) to put the marker in undisturbed ground (meaning that there was no previous population that lived or used that land, so there is little chance the marker will be removed due to further use or archaeological digging). Surveyors in Mesoamerica have trouble finding spots to put their markers because almost all of the ground in Mesoamerica shows some sign of previous use.
Studies have indicated that over half of the archaeological sites that have been uncovered have been vandalized, many to the point where it would be unlikely or impossible to determine any link to any Book of Mormon cities or to get any useful archaeological information from these sites at all.
Another factor is that when a population lives in a place, they eventually replace the infrastructure - things break, or wear out, get replaced, etc. Even the major temples have been resurfaced several times. So, any population that came after the Nephites and lived in their cities, would, over the course of time, remove most things that could be used to identify that place with a Book of Mormon city. This is one reason archaeologists look for trash piles. No one moves trash. They are the best places to look for what happened at the site over the course of time.
Many archaeological sites, if they have been researched at all, have only been researched for only 3 to 4 weeks. Then the researchers are required to cover up the site with dirt to prevent looters from looting anything from the site. Only sites where a constant presence can be maintained are the sites left uncovered.
There is also no guarantee that Book of Mormon cities correspond to major Mayan ruins. The Maya could have built cities in locations completely different than the Book of Mormon cities and the Book of Mormon cities could still be undiscovered.

It will be very difficult to link any known archaeological site with a Book of Mormon city.

7. Could Chinkultic be the city of Nephi?

There are some that believe that Chinkultic is the city of Nephi based on a narrow pass located behind a temple at the site, Mosiah 10:10 [22:7], "And I will go according to thy command, and pay the last tribute of wine to the Lamanites, and they will be drunken; and we will pass through the secret pass on the left of their camp, when they are drunken and asleep;" And, also based on stela that were assumed to be carved between 50-70 A.D. depicting scenes described in the Book of Mormon.
Chinkultic is located in Chiapas, Mexico (16°07'44"N 91°47'06"W / 16.129 -91.785). This location is not consistent with the internal geography model and geography proofs.

The dates that Chinkultic were occupied come from, The Archaeological Ceramics of Chinkultic, Chiapas, Mexico As reconstructed the chinkultic sequence is a relatively short and discontinuous one involving only three complexes or ceramic phases as follows:

Chanujabab phase ca 50 BC / AD 75-300/350 AD
hiatus (no occupancy)
Yobnajab phase ca AD 700-900
Tepancuapan phase ca AD 900-1250
"it seems most probable that the locality was occupied initially sometime between the middle of the first century BC and the close of the first century AD"

The city of Nephi was first occupied about 550 BC. The last specific mention of the land of Nephi was in Helaman 2:82 (about 14 BC) and the last mention of Lamanites coming against Zarahemla is in Mormon 1:24 (about 326 A.D.). The timeline for the city of Nephi and Chinkultic are not consistent. Another telling description of the land of Nephi is in Alma 22:8 [50:8], "And the land of Nephi did run in a straight course from the east sea to the west." This indicates that the land of Nephi extended to the east sea, which does not describe Chiapas, Mexico. This description of the land of Nephi and it's location south of the south wilderness would also indicate a location somewhere in the general vicinity of current-day San Juan, Guatemala, north of Salama and the description in Alma 22:8 would be the valley that contains Lago Isabel which runs east/west and extends to the sea. The temple with the pass was built during the same timeframe as the stela were carved, 591 A.D. to 897 A.D., so it would not be the pass mentioned in Mosiah 10:10 [22:7].
There are too many inconsistencies for Chinkultic to be the city of Nephi.

8. Is Manti on the east or west side of the river Sidon?

In Alma 11:1-11 [16:1-7] Describes the Lamanite army attacking Ammonihah and then returning to their lands by crossing the river Sidon and "marched away beyond the borders of Manti, into the south wilderness, which was on the east side of the river Sidon." This indicates the land of Manti was on the west side of the river Sidon. Then in Alma 20:42-46 [43:39-42], the Lamanites crossed from the valley on the east of the river Sidon to the west of the river Sidon and were chased "towards the land of Manti." Again, this indicates that Manti was on the west of the river sidon.
There are no references that indicate Manti was on the east of the river Sidon. Alma 12:1 [17:1], "And now it came to pass that as Alma was journeying from the land of Gideon, southward, away to the land of Manti, behold, to his astonishment, he met the sons of Mosiah, journeying towards the land of Zarahemla" contains no cardinal directions so no direction for Manti is described in this verse. To assume that there is no menion of Alma and the sons of Mosiah ever crossing the river is to add a bias by adding assumptions. The method of travel in the Book of Mormon is seldom mentioned. It could also be assumed that both parties were traveling by boat. This would ensure that both parties saw each other as they would both be on the same river. Rivers are highways for a reason, they provide the easiest method of travel. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of the mode of travel or how travel might require crossing the river from time to time. So, without adding bias to the geography analysis, Alma 12:1 [17:1] is considered as providing no cardinal directions.
With Manti being on the west side of the river Sidon, the statement that the Lamanites in Alma 26:28 [56:25] "neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah" (on the east of the river sidon) makes sense indicating that the Nephites controlled the east side of the river Sidon and the Lamanites controlled the west side of the river Sidon (cities of Manti, Zeezrom, Cumeni, and Antiparah - Alma 26:15 [56:13]).

9. Does the river Sidon flow north or south?

In Alma 12:1 [17:1], Alma was traveling from Gideon "southward, away to the land of Manti." Then, in Alma 13:73 [22:29], it describes that the Nephites had control of "all the northern parts of the land, bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon." The headwaters are described as being near Manti, Alma 13:69 [22:27], 20:25 [43:22], and 26:28 [56:25]. Water flows downhill, so the river Sidon flows from the headwaters past Manti north towards Gideon. Zarahemla is beside the river Sidon and it is lower in elevation than Gideon, III Nephi 2:25 [3:20], and lower in elevation than Manti, Alma 26:28 [56:25], further describing that the river Sidon flows northward.
The line between the Nephites and Lamanites ran from the West Sea past the headwaters of the river Sidon to the East Wilderness making the line between the Nephites and Lamanites an east-west line and making Zarahemla-to-Nephi a north-south line. This puts the headwaters of the river Sidon between the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla, Alma 13:68 [22:27], Alma 13:69 [22:27] and Alma 22:11 [50:11]. The land of Manti is near the headwaters of the river Sidon, so the land of Manti is also between the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla. Zarahemla was downstream of Gideon, Alma 29:7 [62:7], thus making Manti also south of Zarahemla. The land of Minon was in proximity to the land of Gideon, was upstream of Zarahemla, and on the (north-south) line between Zarahelma and Nephi, Alma 1:80 [2:24].
All references indicate the river Sidon flowed south-to-north.

10. Why throw bodies into the river Sidon?

I find it perplexing if the river Sidon flows north past Zarahemla and Gideon that the Nephites would throw thousands of dead bodies into the river Sidon by the hill Riplah (Alma 43), which is south of these major cities. Why would the Nephites who practiced the law of Moses (Alma 14:74 [25:15]) allow all that blood and gore of those who had been killed, both Nephites and Lamanites (Alma 20:97 [44:22]), to be floated past these major cities where loved ones of the dead could see them float by? If the river was used for irrigation or drinking water for animals I can't think of anyone who would allow such an atrocity after such a brutal battle.

Although not an obvious geography topic, it does cover one aspect that can be used to interpret the geography.

In World War II, after the invasion of Tarawa, 5,000 bodies lay rotting in the sun. Enemy bodies were collected in piles and then hauled out to sea in Higgins boats and dumped.
Burning bodies after a battle is another option. However practical it is, soldiers consider it repugnant to burn bodies like trash. After the battle of the Alamo, some of the 400 to 1,600 dead Mexican soldiers (differing estimates exist) were buried, but the rest were thrown in the nearby San Antonio river after the smell of their decomposing bodies became too bad. The 182 Alamo defenders were piled and burned (one defender whose brother was a Mexican guard was buried). This example illustrates that the time required to bury bodies may take too long before another action is required to deal with the stench. Obviously, the Mexican army considered throwing their dead into the river was better than burning their own dead.
Leaving bodies to decompose is another option and it was used in the Book of Mormon, Alma 11:15-19 [16:9-11]. This strategy, however, leaves the area uninhabitable, "Alma 11:18 [16:11] And now so great was the scent thereof, that the people did not go in to possess the land of Ammonihah for many years." If the Nephites wished to remain in Manti, this would not be a good option.
So, the factors that impact how to dispose of many dead bodies are to let them rot, burying (if time permits), burning (based on attitudes towards burning and the availability of wood to burn the number of bodies), and dumping bodies in a body of water (sea or river). Options are limited.

The one aspect of the description in Alma 20:97 [44:22] that describes geography is that the river Sidon at the point where the bodies were cast into the river was big enough to illustrate that the bodies could float to the sea. The river Sidon has a large volume of water at the location of the west and east valleys.

11. What is the geography of Chaldea?

Chaldea is mentioned twice in the Book of Mormon. "1 Nephi 6:21 [20:14] All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; who among them hath declared these things unto them? The Lord hath loved him; yea, and he will fulfill his word which he hath declared by them; and he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall come upon the Chaldeans." and "1 Nephi 6:27 [20:20] Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter to the end of the earth; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob."

These verses are also found in Isaiah 48:14 and 48:20. This provides an approximate date for the writings. The writings of Isaiah were between 740 and 687 BCE. However, verses 40 to 55 have been identified with an anonymous writer with an estimated date during, or near the end of, the Babylonian captivity, so it could have been written as late as 538 BCE. However, Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE with the text.
The Chaldean (also called Neo-Babylonian) Empire during this time period started as the area at the head of the Persian Gulf and along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers up to Babylon. Babylon was controlled by both the Assyrians and Chaldeans several times between 721 BCE and 620 BCE. When the Chaldeans, Medes, Scythians, and Cimmerians together sacked Ninevah of the Assyrian Empire in 621 BCE, they controlled the lands to the head of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and along the Mediterranean coast, including Judah (Israel). The Chaldean (Neo-Babylonian) Empire was overthrown by the Persian Empire in 539 BCE.
These verses indicate the date of the writing was when Chaldea controlled Babylon. The date of the text being prior to 600 BCE is consistent with the dates Chaldea controlled Babylon.

12. Can the Hill Cumorah in New York be the same Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon?

As stated in the "What is Geography?" section, the internal model was created first to prevent any bias from world locations mentioned by other theories. The "Narrow Necks" section identifies one of the key Book of Mormon geography descriptions (narrow neck) and provides an exhaustive list of world locations that meet that criteria - which does not include New York. The "Proofs" section identifies unique world geography that meets several of the Book of Mormon descriptions - one of which, "Intersecting Valleys," includes the travels (Ether Travel Maps 9 and 10) just prior to the armies traveling to Hill Ramah (which is the same as Hill Cumorah, Ether 6:83 [15:11]). These proofs occur in only one place on Earth - that happens to be in Mesoamerica. Simply put, New York does not match the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. Not just with Hill Cumorah, but with the other location descriptions as well.

Questions & Answers