Jump to content

Mapping The Book Of Mormon In The Americas


Recommended Posts

As some of you may have noticed, there have been a number of threads recently on the FAIR boards related to interest in finding or lack of finding artifacts directly connectable to the Book of Mormon Cultures. In addition there have been a number of new discoveries in the Americas that have brought new information about cultures existing during the Book of Mormon time periods. Before these findings can be correlated with the Book of Mormon it is necessary to decide where the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites were located geographically.

In his review of Richard Hauck's book on Book of Mormon Geography, John Clark makes the following statement

A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies

Review of Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon by F. Richard Hauck

Reviewed By: John E. Clark

Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1989. Pp. 20

Link to comment
Sign me up, Larry.

You are on the list, but remember, I am not going to do the work, YOU ARE.

Seriously, If you want to gain an understanding of Book of Mormon geography, you have to do some geographical investigation on your own.

For example:

Look up a scripture in the BoM that describes a geographical feature. then write down all the possible ways that scripture could be interpreted in terms of geography and directions. If you only list one possibility, you are relying too much on expert opinion and not thinking it out for your self.

Remember that when Oliver Cowdery wanted to translate and failed he was given the following instruction.

D&C 9:8

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Use the 1828 Webster to check your interpretation of the information found in the text and then get out your maps and look for an area or areas in the Americas that fits each of your interpretations. There may be more than one so keep track of all of them so you can determine if they converge with other locations and information.

Dont be discouraged if it starts to look complicated, it will get simpler the more you learn.

One of the ways you can progress is to ask questions. I will try to answer some of them as we go along.

So I will expect to see a regular report on your Homework. I wont correct it but maybe someone else will try to correct it for you.

Larry P

Link to comment

On a different parallel thread, Larry asked:

I would be particularly interested in a short essay on the difference between convergence and parallels.

Any ethnohistoric reconstruction I know of attempts to fill in the knowledge gaps with reasonable inferences from cultures or situations that are plausibly parallel. The problem is that the simplistic methodology of creating lists of "parallels" has so muddied the methdological waters that if nothing else, convergence is a term that allows for the preservation of the good without the unfortunage bad baggage of the poor methodologies.

Parallels, in and of themselves, are next to useless. Sometimes the items paralleled are clearly parallel, but the parallels could easily be due to independent invention. One such is the "parallel" of using adobe in the Old and New Worlds. That is certainly parallel - but meaningless. There is nothing inherently unique about sun dried mud.

Other problems in parallels is that many times "parallels" are created by the way they are described. Things that really have no relationship to one another at all can be made to appear "parallel" if worded correctly. That doesn't make them useful - it makes them deceptive.

The concept of a convergence is much more useful because it understands that there is no single point of comparison that really shows anything. What is required is multiple points of simultaneous and interconnect comparisons. The more you have multiple parallels that are unique and interconnected in non-random ways, the more likely that there really is a connection.

However, even with those kinds of convergences there is a lot required before one can say that two otherwise disconnected cultures share time and space in a meaningful way. My favorite example is an Indonesian (Balinese) Garuda carving I have on my desk. The Garduda is a man-eagle who carries Arjun on his back. He has a man's body but bird wings. Most fascinating to me is that he wears a bird mask that has teeth. In addition, at he back of the toothed beak are two large backward curving teeth. Around the connection fo the beak to the face is a beard-fringe. This is visually identical to the buccal mask on Mesoamerican Quetzalcoatl figures.

This is a highly arbitrary connection that cannot rely on nature (what bird has not only teeth, but that kind of dentition?). Nevertheless, it is insufficient to demonstrate connection because I cannot currently connect the images in time. Without knowing that there is a time period when they coexist I can't even begin to posit a relationship.

That is where convergences begin to make our case. In the case of the Garuda I have some convergences, but not enough. Enough to be curious and warrant investigation, but insufficient for a conclusion. I need more.

In the case of the Book of Mormon we require similar convergences. They must be similarly arbitrary, consisting of elements that would not normally be seen in that combination. In addition, however, there are further requirements of time and space. There are so many areas in which the text must converge with the real world that when the convergences in each of those areas continue to amount, there is evidence that there is a connection.

That was the basic thrust of my FAIR presentation. There are a large number of non-arbitrary ways in which the text converges with a time and place. Obviously, some are stronger than others, but the continued mass of data that continue to converge on the same place, timeframe and culture makes it more difficult to dismiss the case as arbitrary.

Link to comment

Thanks Brant.

I asked Brant to insert this brief essay because the purpose for understanding BoM geography should be to gain better understanding of an important factor which impacted the Nephites and their interactions with the Lamanites. Its purpose is not to produce a testimony of its truth but to add to and enhance the testimony we already have.

Convergence between geography and the Book of Mormon story as it emerges from the writings of Nephi and his family and the abridgement of Nephite history provided by Mormon is necessary in order for any attempt to define BoM geography to be useful and/or convincing.

Brants statement


The concept of a convergence is much more useful because it understands that there is no single point of comparison {Substitutethat geographic feature or location} that really shows anything. What is required is multiple points of simultaneous and interconnect comparisons. The more you have multiple parallels {again substitute geographic feature or location}  that are unique and interconnected in non-random ways, the more likely that there really is a connection.

applies to BoM geography and should always be remembered when reading and interpreting the textual information about geography found in the BoM.

Larry P

Link to comment

We are still in chapter 2. One of the major problems of Book of Mormon geographers is the failure to establish ground rules before starting to sort out the many descriptions and references to geography found in the Book of Mormon. Another is the failure to establish the meanings of geographical terms such as sea, up, down and the cardinal directions as used in Joseph Smith's time and culture and/or in precolumbian cultures of the Americas. These criteria should be carefully thought out, written down and followed. If not, contradictions will be introduced into the model as a result of introducing new assumptions as you go along.

The following list includes most of but not all of my assumptions and the ground rules I feel are important.

From my web site.

Getting Things straight

1. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by divine power and it is the most correct book of scripture that we presently have. This however, does not say it does not contain errors and/or abiguities in grammer. Both Mormon and Moroni expressed their concern about possible errors. This does not, however, give us license to resolve problems with our interpretation of geography by claiming that they were in error or that Joseph Smith misstranslated that concept.

2. He translated it into the English language based on what he spoke and the use of words and directions with which he was familiar. This is not necessarily the same as what we are accustomed to in our urban culture of today. However, it is a true and correct translation. We must, therefore assume that all directions were translated correctly and did not result from a misunderstanding by Joseph Smith of the Book of Mormon culture in relation to the agrarian culture of upper New York State in the early 1800s.

3. The Book of Mormon is a lineage history, an abridgement of many records recorded (with great difficulty) on a limited number of gold plates and therefore many descriptions of activities described and battles may be more abbreviated and shortened than what we might expect from a contemporary description of similar events. Because of the dificulty in engraving on the plates we must accept the probability that Mormon only included that which was important and useful to the future reader of his words.

4. We must accept geographical descriptions,  as carrying more weight in determining relative locations than distances calculated by assuming travel distances based on calculations of the time it took to carry out different and varied activities described in the Book of Mormon. There should be agreement with the type of geography and the nature of the activity, but the size or the distance covered may be greater or less than our assumptions would suggest. However, all areas described should be in the right place with respect to what is said in the text. This may require us to reexamine our preconceived assumptions and their effect on our interpretation of the scriptural text.

5. And finally, we must take great care in attempting to fit our map to areas based on the existence of ruins and our assumptions about their identity to book of Mormon locations.

6. We must, however, base our assumptions on the known data concerning the cultures of Mesoamerica, the times these cultures existed and the geographic areas they occupied. Eg. the Jaredite culture must exist at a time with literate cultures  known to have existed no earlier than 3000 B.C. and which essentially disappeared shortly before the birth of Christ. The Olmec culture is generally accepted to have existed during this time. We could , of course, assume a very limited area where little or no data is available and propose anything which pleases. This is inconsistent with population descriptions and statements in the Book of Mormon about the extent to which the lands were occupied. It is unreasonable to think that Joseph Smith would have inaccurately translated these concepts. The Olmec culture occupied the lowland areas on the Atlantic coast from Veracruz  on the West to Villa Hermosa on the east. Although it is tempting to equate the Jaredites with the Olmec culture, care should be taken in doing so. Recent evidence has shown that cultures similar to the Olmecs and in the same time period have been found in the area near Tampico far from the Olmec heartland. On the other hand, the Nephite culture ended before 600 A.D. and cannot be equated with either the Aztec or Inca cultures which did not arise until after 1000 A.D. The Nephite culture is difficult to identify, because it coexisted with the Lamanite culture which, as reported in the Book of Mormon, was always more numerous than the Nephites and did not disappear at the same time as the Nephite culture. In fact it may have flourished after the destruction of  their arch rivals, the Nephites.

These are my criteria, you need to establish your own set.

We will discuss the meaning of geographic terms in the next installment.

Remember your homework assignment. I have not seen any thoughts on this question here {Where are all the pundits?} or in the disscusion thread.

At the University of Texas, where I taught and did research untill I retired, there is a faculty lounge call "Forty Acres". In western movies and novels one often finds the authors referring to "The south forty". Your assignment is to consider these terms which originated in the western frontier culture of the 19th century and what is their significance with relationship to that culture's view of geography.

Larry P

Link to comment

Charity sent the following information (homework) to me by PM. Since it is highly pertinent to our understanding of geographic culture in the time of Joeseph Smith, I obtained permission to post it here as part of the main thread.


  Various versions of free land acts, such as the Homestead act of 1862 gave individuals or heads of households 1/4 sections of land, which were approximately 160 acres.  Farmers would divide up their 160 acres into sections, and designate them by directions, n, e, w, s.  These did not have to be necessarily 40 acres exactly. 

Also, the term "forty" per the 1828 Websters could mean an indefinite number

The land areas were surveyed into large tracts determined by goverment surveyors. Out here in Oregon, all the surveys start from the intersection of the Willamette Meridian and Willamette Baseline. The Land Act of 1850 occasioned the placing of the marker, at first just a cedar stake, which has since been replaced by a metal marker.


Thanks Charity for your input.

Now, Which section is the "south forty"?

Larry P

Link to comment

We are now approaching that aspect of Book of Mormon Geography that has produced a fair amount of controversy. It is not the purpose of this exercise to resolve these controversies, however , I will try to point out the tools available to each of you that you may come to your own conclusions. I will of course at times inject by own bias. After all that is one perogative of the teacher.

Before actually considering the meanings of the geographic terms found in the text of the Book of Mormon, please consdider the following.


D&C 1:24

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

we are given to understand that God, because of men's weakness, gives His revelations to His servants in the manner of their language so that they will understand and be able to transmit his message to us.


D&C 1:29

And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

we learn that this applies to the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Years ago I attended a General Priesthood meeting in Salt Lake City where a professor of communication was asked to talk on the manner in which we communicate with each other. The only thing that has stuck with me from his talk was his statement which I can only paraphrase as follows:

When I speak to you, I speak from the background of my experience (and culture) When you listen to me you understand based on the background of your experience (and culture). Communication only occurs when we have a common background and experience.

When reading the Book of Mormon, most of us have little trouble understanding the spiritual messages because we tend to have a common background based on the Bible and a culture founded on Christian principles. When it comes to understanding non religious concepts found in the Book of Mormon such as geography, we are faced with the fact that we do not have a common background, with respect to geography, with the culture and writers of the Book of Mormon peoples.

When we are faced with this problem in communication between two people, both speakers have a responsibility to at least attempt to aquire some knowledge about each others background and experience and stick to topics where there is a common background and experience until understanding creates new areas of common experience.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we do not have the option of expecting the writers of the Book of Mormon to understand and relate to our background and experience, although they certainly tried to do so through revelation and the power of the Holy Ghost. It is incumbent on us as individuals to seek after knowledge and understanding of their culture and background and not try to interpret their geographic descriptions based on our knowledge and background about geography.

Fortunately for us, as noted above, Joseph Smith was chosen to translate the Book of Mormon into the English language for our understanding and did so by the mercy and power of God.

Unfortunately for us, the tanslation was done into Joseph Smith's understanding of the English language and culture of his day and this has changed significantly in many ways since that time.

Fortunately we have available dictionaries published during Joseph Smith's lifetime which reflect the culture and language of his day and provide us a way to learn about and become aquainted with the language used to translate the Book of Mormon.

Your next exercise is to look up the following words in the 1828 Webster and ponder how they might differ in meaning from the meaning given to them in our modern urban culture. Dont just look at the first meaning given. Also check some of the other words that use the word in its definition. This will give you more of a feeling of how the word was used in Joseph Smith's time and culture.

North, South, East, West, up, down, hill, sea, lake, mountain, wilderness, northward, easstward, southward and westward.

For those of you who are too lazy to look them up yourselves, I will publish them with my comments in the next installment.

Larry P

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...


Let's start with wilderness

From 1828 Webster

WILDERNESS, n. [from wild.]

1. A desert; a tract of land or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings, whether a forest or a wide barren plain. In the United States, it is applied only to a forest. In Scripture, it is applied frequently to the deserts of Arabia. The Israelites wandered int he wilderness forty years.


1. Destitute or deprived of inhabitants; desert; uninhabited; denoting either stripped of inhabitants, or never having been inhabitated; as a desolate isle; a desolate wilderness.

In the United states at this time the word wilderness was never applied to an arid location but denoted an uninhabited area. In the Book of Mormon in Alma we find a description of a wildernes which seperates the Land of Zarahemla (Nephites) to the north from the Land of Nephi-Lehi (Lamanites) to the south.

Alma 22:27 And it came to pass that the king sent a aproclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the bwest, and which was divided from the land of cZarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of dManti, by the head of the eriver Sidon, running from the east towards the westâ??and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

It is described as a "narrow strip" and runs from the east sea to the west sea. It contains the headwaters of the river Sidon and therefore must be at a higher elevation than the Land of Zarahemla. Other scriptures indicate that it was nescesary to go "up" to reach the head of the Sidon. These requirements suggest a narrow strip of mountains, sparsely or uninhabited which formed a natural barrier between the Nephite and Lamanite lands.

One possible candidate for this strip of wilderness is found along the border between Mexico and Guatemala which has served as a narural barrier between cultures since before the Spanish conquest.


This is my primary choice. There may be others but You can look for yourselves.

More definitions to come.

Larry P

Link to comment

More definitions

Sea, lake and ocean

SEA, n. see. [This word, like lake, signifies primarily a seat, set or lay, a repository, a bason.]

2. A large body of water, nearly inclosed by land, as the Baltic or the Mediterranean; as the sea of Azof. Seas are properly branches of the ocean, and upon the same level. Large bodies of water inland, and situated above the level of the ocean, are lakes. The appellation of sea, given to the Caspian lake, is an exception, and not very correct. So the lake of Galilee is called a sea, from the Greek.

3. The ocean; as, to go to sea. The fleet is at sea, or on the high seas.

LAKE, n. [L. lacus. A lake is a stand of water, from the root of lay. Hence L. lagena, Eng. flagon.]

1. A large and extensive collection of water contained in a cavity or hollow of the earth. It differs from a pond in size, the latter being a collection of small extent; but sometimes a collection of water is called a pond or a lake indifferently. North America contains some of the largest lakes on the globe, particularly the lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan and Superior.

OCEAN, n. o'shun. [L. oceanus; Gr.; Heb. to encompass, whence a circle. This is probably an error. The word seems to have for its origin greatness or extent.]

1. The vast body of water which covers more than three fifths of the surface of the globe, called also the sea, or great sea. It is customary to speak of the ocean as if divided into three parts, the Atlantic ocean, the Pacific ocean, and the Indian ocean; but the ocean is one mass or body, partially separated by the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa on one side, and by America on the other.

2. An immense expanse; as the boundless ocean of eternity; oceans of duration and space.

Keven Barneyâ??s meanings in Hebrew

"Sea" is *yam*.

"Ocean" is probably *tehom rabbah*, literally "a great

quantity of waters."

In classical Hebrew I'm not aware of a clear

distinction between "lake" and "sea"; a "lake" would

similarly be *yam*. (For instance, the "Sea of

Galilee" is also called "Lake Gennesaret.")

The meaning of these words in Hebrew as opposed to the meaning understood by Joseph Smithâ??s contemporaries brings up the question of whether it is legitimate to substitute lake for the word sea in the Book of Mormon. An example of the use of lake in the Book of Mormon is found in

Alma 14:14

Now it came to pass that when the bodies of those who had been cast into the fire were consumed, and also the records which were cast in with them, the chief judge of the land came and stood before Alma and Amulek, as they were bound; and he smote them with his hand upon their cheeks, and said unto them: After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?

In the Book of Mormon, lake appears only in the phrase â??lake of fire and brimstoneâ? and nowhere else.

If the underlying text did not distinguish between lake and sea as in the Hebrew language, then it is surprising that Joseph Smith did not use both lake and sea to randomly translate this concept into the English language.

If, however, we accept that the translation was done by divine power and for our understanding today, then his exclusive use of sea would indicate that whatever word Nephi and Mormon used, it referred to a sea rather than a lake. However you can decide for yourselves on this one. Just remember the Book of Mormon was translated to be understandable by the common reader not for students of classical Hebrew.

Interestingly enough, is the manner in which Hebrew expresses the concept of ocean. It is described as â??a great quantity of watersâ? exactly as Nephi describes it in

1Nephi 17:5

And we did come to the land which we called aBountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.

When I was on my mission in Mexico, I had a companion who was a native speaker of the Nahuatl language. I asked him how the natives would say ocean? His response was â??a large place filled with waterâ?. Apparently, like the Hebrews they had no word for ocean.

Link to comment

Compass directions

These have been pretty thoroughly discussed in the discussion section, so I will only summarize and post the data from the Book of Mormon text.

The following table shows the distribution and use of directional elements in the text of the Book of Mormon.

North 37

Land North 4

Land on the North 0

In the North 4

In the land North 3

On the North 11

On the land North 0

Northward 45

Land Northward 30

Land on the Northward 1

In the Northward 0

In the land Northward 7

On the Northward 3

On the land Northward 1

South 36

Land South 4

Land on the South 1

In The South 3

In the land South 3

On the South 15

On the land South 0

Southward 20

Land Southward 14

Land on the Southward 1

In the Southward 0

In the land Southward 4

On the Southward 2

On the Land Southward 1

East 47

Land East 0

Land on the East 0

In the East 4

In the land East 0

On the East 17

On the land East 0

Eastward 3

Land Eastward 0

Land on the Eastward 0

In the Eastward 0

In the land Eastward 0

On the eastward 0

On the land Eastward 0

West 41

Land West 0

Land on the West 0

In the west 2

In the land West 0

On the West 18

On the land west 0

Westward 0

Land Westward 0

Land on the Westward 0

In the Westward 0

In the land Westward 0

On the Westward 0

On the land Westward 0

As you can see, there are more referecnces to directions containing the elements of north and south than to those containing east and west. There are no references to westward and only three to eastward.

Based on the following vectorial distribution of directions expected from the Mesoamerican concept of directions


The calculated distributions are northern quarter 39%, eastern quarter 19%, western quarter 16 %, southern quarter 27%. The theoretical distribution is 37%, 13%, 13%, and 37% respectively. Not a perfect match but much better that the 25% for all quarters exprected from our modern concept of equal distribution to the four quarters based on the compass rose.

Although this supports a mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon culture it does not prove it. Any location from about latitude 30 degrees north to 30 degrees south would have a similar distribution for cultures that used the solstice positions of sunrise. However, as one approaches latitudes of 45 degrees the angle between the Winter and the summer sunset at the solstice approachs 90 degrees and a 25% distribution for each quarter.

Your final tool

If one draws the above vectorial distribution pattern on a transparent plastic sheet, one can move it over a map and center it on rivers running south to north. Only those rivers that show seas, or large bodies of water in all four quarters or at a minimum in the eastern and western quarters are viable candidates for the river Sidon and thus the central parts of the Nephite lands.

Larry P

Link to comment

Now that you have all the basic tools you need to study the geographic texts of the Book of Mormon and build your own concept of Book of Mormon geography, it is time to look at methods.

In order to build a consistent picture of any geography from textual descriptions, it is necessary to already have or choose an anchor point. This geographic feature serves as the anchor around which all other geographic features mentioned in the text are placed. The text must contain descriptive information sufficient to identify a location on modern maps, which fits the description in the text.

Both Jerusalem and the Red Sea are old world locations mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Since Jerusalem is the point of departure for Lehi and his family, it is the obvious choice for an anchor point for their travels in the old world from Jerusalem to the seashore at Bountiful. It has a continuous historical context from the time Lehi left Jerusalem up to our day and there is no problem locating it on modern maps. Using Jerusalem and the geography of the surrounding area a reasonable description of this part of the journey has been proposed. It fits both the culture and the geography as described in the text of the Book of Mormon.

When we consider the new world of the Americas we are faced with the problem that there are no geographical features mentioned in the text that have a continuous historical context going back to the time of Lehi and his family's arrival in the new world. The only connection we have is the final burial place of the plates. Although we know where Joseph Smith found them, there is no textual information connecting that place with any other geographical feature mentioned in the Book of Mormon. During the 35 years that Moroni wandered before burying the plates, he could have traveled from almost any place in the Americas to the hill in New York where he buried the plates and later delivered them to Joseph Smith. It is unlikely that he remained in the same area where the last battles were fought since in his own words, he was fleeing from the Lamanites who obviously still controlled that area.

Since Joseph Smith and the early saints were of the opinion that Zarahemla was located somewhere in Central America or southern Mexico then if we identify the hill in New York with the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, which the early Latter Day Saints did, we are faced with the problem of resolving the numerous travel times mentioned in the text between locations near Zarahemla and the Land of Cumorah. There is, however, no problem with accepting that Moroni could have traveled from there to New York in 35 years. Since there are many other geographic features mentioned in the text that are not plagued by this problem, it is reasonable to put the location of the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah on the back burner until we have a better idea of where we think the Book Mormon culture took place. We can then try to identify possible locations for this feature.

Not having good evidence to identify the Book of Mormon Cumorah as an anchor we must choose another. Possibilities are

The narrow neck

The narrow strip of wilderness

The east sea

The west sea


The river Sidon.

If we base our choice on the number of times the feature is mentioned and the amount of geographical information available in the text then the order of preference is as follows

1. The river Sidon

2. The east sea and west sea

3. The narrow neck

4. The narrow strip of wilderness

No other feature is mentioned with as much geographic information as for the river Sidon. Although the seas are mentioned numerous times, the only information about them is their direction with respect to the principle parts of the land of Zarahemla. The narrow neck, both seas and the narrow strip of wilderness are all mentioned with their geographical relationship to the Head of the river Sidon. If we choose the river Sidon as anchor, then the relationship between these features and the river Sidon as described in the text will serve to ensure we have chosen a river on modern maps with a high probability of being the same as the river Sidon described in the text of the Book of Mormon. Any rivers that do not place these features in the correct relationship to the Sidon are poor candidates and will result in a high probability that the chosen location is wrong.

One final caveat. Although there have been many proposed internal maps of Book of Mormon geography, most of them fail to correlate well with real geography. Geological, archeological and anthropological data all agree that, other than minor changes due to volcanic activity and earthquakes, the geography of the Americas has seen little change since well before the arrival of Book of Mormon peoples on the American continent. In order to create a rational concept of Book of Mormon geography requires a constant back and forth examination of the text and the geography using the best maps available to us today

You now have sufficient basic tools and information to study the scriptural references in the text, compare it to your map and draw your own conclusions about where the Book of Mormon took place.

For those who wish to know my results using these tools and methods you may visit my Web page titled "Lawrence Poulsen's Book of Mormon Geography". If you donâ??t already know the URL, PM me and I will send it to you.

That's all folks. See you in the discussion section if there are questions.

Larry P

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

It will be two months on Christmas day since we finished the tutorial. Has anyone completed their own basic map of the Book of Mormon culture? Or even begun? Has anyone used Google Earth to lokk for geography that matches their internal map based on the text.

I just made Simisley's book available on the web for those interested. It has some good tables and discussion about internal maps and how they might correlate with actual geography and geological data.

Here is the url of the book


Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everone

Larry P

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Larry, on the links above, you need to put in the new domain name for them to work. i.e. change www.fairboards.org to www.mormonapologetics.org. I'd do it but obviously I can't edit your message.

I edited all of them but only the first one shows up. When I go back to edit again, they all show as edited.

But they all seem to work anyway now.

Larry P

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Not my call.

Larry P

Three months and there are newbies around so here goes another "bump"

If any of you are interested there are a couple of threads on the More Good Foundation board with some new information about BofM geography.

Larry P

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...