| 
 
		 
		Exaggerated For the Book of Mormon, Came to Pass By W. Vincent Coon | 
| 
 | 
| 
 | 
The Art of Herb Roe, 
depicting a North American 
mound builder city
 
 
| 
		 
		Various "Book of Mormon Geography" theories are depicted in maps 
		containing two-dimensional information only. The  Book of Mormon 
		actually contains three-dimensional facts about its sacred lands.  
		It is not enough to find a "narrow neck of land", and a northward flowing river 
somewhere in the  The directions to various bodies of water, called seas, need to fit scriptural coordinates. Israelite directions depend on the perceived movements of the sun and the moon. (Genesis 1:14) Israelite directions were an integral part of priesthood ordinances. (Leviticus 1:11) 
		 
		The relative locations and elevations of Book of Mormon lands are 
		indicated in the text with perfect consistency. Notwithstanding a great 
		upheaval at the Savior's death, key land features like the "narrow pass", and 
the general southward rise 
in
 
 
		elevation persisted. 
(Mormon 1:10; 
 2:29; 
 3:7-8, 
 14-16; 
4:1) Traveling south 
from the  
		 
		The Book of Mormon narrative describes a limited geography, with prophetic and 
historical events associated with it: The book describes a Promised Land that would see Gentile 
explorers, pilgrims, the American struggle for  
		 
		Other non-hemispheric 
settings situate Book of Mormon places and events within the mainland of the  | 
| What is a common presumption in 
		all exaggerated settings for the Book of Mormon? 
		"Now the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and 
		dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, 
		in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of 
		Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the 
		land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers' first inheritance, and 
		thus bordering along by the seashore." To allege that the north, south, east, and west seas bordering various Book of Mormon lands are all oceanic bodies is to make extrapolations beyond what the scripture says. (Helaman 3:8) The logic that sea must mean ocean, fails in the case of many biblical verses that refer to a "sea" or "the sea" (Numbers 34:11, Joel 2:20) Even "the great sea" (the Mediterranean, Numbers 34:6) bordering the biblical Promise Land, is really an inland body of water. 
		References to "beach" or "sea shore" in scripture needn't mean an 
		ocean coast. (Genesis 22:17) 
		The same Hebrew word "saphah" (שׇׂפׇה) translated "shore" in one instance is also 
		translated "bank" as in "bank of the Jordan". 
		 
		
		(2 Kings 2:13; 
		 The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon, 
		entry 8193, 
		שׇׂפׇה, pp. 973-974)  The women of the company had given birth during their wilderness sojourn. (1 Nephi 17:1-2) The company could easily have consisted of more than thirty souls at the time they set sail. They had limited stowage. The preferred sea path to the Promised Land would have been one that would keep them in reach of coastline (food and much needed freshwater) for most of the voyage. 
		One possible 
		location where they may have re-supplied is the island of Grand Comore; about 200 miles off the eastern coast of Africa. The capitol port 
		city of the island, by the way, has a Semitic name – "Moroni". 
		Thus Book of Mormon immigrants to the New World didn't just sail across the many waters to the 
		land of promise, they sailed "cross the large waters
		 into 
		the promised land..." as the scripture says. 
	
		(1 Nephi summary,
		Omni 1:16)  
		The spiritual significance of taking a 
		strait and narrow course across a gulf was not lost on later generations 
		of Lehi's faithful descendents. (Helaman 3:29) 
		Scripture indicates that Lehi's family traveled so far northward that 
		they encountered, "driven snow" a description used by Nephi in relating 
		details of his vision to future generations of his people 
		in the American land of promise. 
		(1 Nephi 11:8) A company the size of Lehi's must have required many stops along the way - for freshwater and victuals if nothing more. These necessary landfalls were not recorded in the abridgement. It stands to reason that they did not risk bringing the ship too close to shore each time. They likely had smaller craft for these excursions. Smaller craft could have also aided in bringing Lehi's company to their inheritance near Lake Erie. Jacob son of Lehi referred to the land they arrived at as "an isle of the sea", an expression he took from Hebrew scripture. (2 Nephi 10:20-21) The Hebrew word translate "isle", "i" (אִי) means "coast", "region", "habitable land". It does not exclusively mean an island or small landmass entirely surrounded by water. Isaiah in fact, uses the same Hebrew word to describe Mediterranean countries, including the land of Israel. (Isaiah 20:6; The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon, entry 339, אִי, pp. 15-16) Certain Book of Mormon lands "were nearly surrounded by water..." (Alma 22:32), but the "water" mentioned does not have to mean ocean. 
		 Crossing "the large waters into the promised land..." (1 Nephi 1) 
		Both May and Olive agree that other ancient peoples in the Book of 
		Mormon land northward (the Jaredites and the Mulekites), arrived by way 
		of the Atlantic and St. Lawrence channel. This opinion agrees with 
		Joseph Smith's statement, placing the arrival of the Jaredites in the 
		region of "the lake country of America" (near Lake Ontario).
		("Traits of the Mosaic History Found Among the 
		Aztaeca Nations", Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842, Vol. 3, No. 16, pp 
		818-20, signed with Joseph Smith's "ED") Josiah Priest, whose 
		written work Joseph Smith editorialized, associated the title 
		"lake country" with the Great Lakes region of America. [5]  | 
| 
 | 
| 
 
		How did the mistake of placing Zarahemla so very far from Cumorah come 
		about? 
 
Orson Pratt 
outlived more than one Apostle who differed with his geographic conclusions. 
Late in the nineteenth Century, Orson Pratt’s geography prevailed to the point 
of being published as footnotes in the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon. 
Though his speculative footnotes have since been removed, his influence carries 
on in the Church. Elder Orson Pratt started promoting his over-sized 
		Book of Mormon geography as a brilliant young missionary on fire with 
		his own vision of the scripture - a book which he had only begun to 
		study in depth. 
		Elder Pratt discoursed on “ancient” Cumorah in western  Out of line with key Book of Mormon details, Elder Pratt 
		placed Nephite cities like “Amonihah in the northern part of South 
		America”,
		
		while correctly recognizing Cumorah in western  
		 
		
		 
Murals at the Rochester Museum 
of Science depicting the prehistoric New York mastodon and its use by local 
people. Large numbers of these creatures inhabited western New York in ages 
past. The discovery of 
mastodon remains in New York, where native earthworks were also found, led many to 
presume that the animal was contemporary 
with mound building people. (Ether 9:19) Latter-day Saint Apostle Orson Pratt 
acknowledged the mound builder 
setting for the Book of Mormon, but exaggerated it. Elder Pratt stretched his 
mound builder geography 
over 
the Western Hemisphere! His geographic views greatly influenced  Mormon 
opinion for a while.  
 
American Heartland
 
e.g. 
”Manti” in Missouri, circa 1838, as indicated in the 
Journal of Samuel D. Tyler, September 25, 1838. In the late 1830s, 
some members of the Church claimed that the Book of Mormon city of  Thus we see that the hemispheric setting was not the only geographic model on the minds of early members of the Church. Joseph Smith’s contemporaries had different, conflicting ideas about Book of Mormon lands. Joseph apparently tolerated this, but he refused to take responsibility for things published in his name, that did not come under his supervisions. For instance in the March the 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons, Joseph refused to take responsibility for the previous February 15 issue published in his name. The absence of certified comments from Joseph Smith on ideas of the time like: Manti in Missouri, Lehi’s landing in Chile, Lehi’s landing just south of Panama, "the narrow neck of land" embracing all of Central America, Zarahemla at Quirigua, etc., does not mean that he endorsed these conflicting ideas. Joseph at the very least had resolved that some Book of Mormon events took place in his own country. He clearly stated this, and the Saints accepted it! Beyond this he apparently allowed the Saints to do as the Bible directs: “…consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.” (Judges 19:30) 
Even though exaggerated hemispheric settings for the Book of Mormon were 
encouraged by some early Church leaders, there is no known statement by Joseph 
Smith endorsing a hemispheric model. 
The fact that Elder John Page entertained a non-hemispheric setting 
for the Book of Mormon, indicates that Joseph Smith did not teach a hemispheric 
setting as an oral tradition. Page clearly did not agree with the geography of his contemporary Orson Pratt (who did not attribute his 
hemispheric model to Joseph Smith or to revelation). [8] The fact 
that other LDS in the late 1830s placed southern Nephite territory (Manti) in 
the  
The Hemispheric geography got a boost sometime after the death of Joseph Smith, when the Williams document (alleging 
a  While having "no confidence" in various Book of Mormon geographies of his day, First Presidency member George Q. Cannon nevertheless regarded the location of Cumorah as settled. [11] The thing that all early models agreed on was the general location of the land Cumorah revealed by Joseph Smith. (D&C 128:20) In time, the RLDS church relegated Joseph Smith’s epistle mentioning Cumorah, to an historical appendix in their version of “the Doctrine and Covenants” (RLDS D&C 110; see also RLDS D&C 107), even though the Prophet had endorsed the epistle as “the word of the Lord”. (LDS D&C 127:10, D&C 128:1-2) The chief subject of the epistle is “baptism for the dead”, a practice RLDS leaders chose not to regard as binding upon their following. Marginalizing the authority of Joseph’s epistle on baptism for the dead made dismissing the location of Cumorah indicated in the epistle, less problematic for RLDS members. It is not surprising, therefore, that the earliest "limited" Central American geography theories, dismissing the revealed location of Cumorah, were advanced by RLDS. 
		
		To be fair, RLDS 
		
		
		
		should be recognized for their 
		attention to some Book of Mormon details. Some 
		
		
		 began to realize that the book’s principal lands were more 
		localized than previously supposed. 
		
		
		(Hills, Louis E., 1917; Gunsolley, Jeremiah F., 1922)  [9]  Even so, a decision was made to 
		shrink-fit proposed settings around distant locations that had been 
		celebrated in 
		exaggerated geographies, and travelogues instead of anchoring near the land Cumorah 
		revealed by Joseph Smith. In other words, some chose to trade the 
		location of 
		
		Cumorah revealed by the Prophet, for exotic pottage in 
		faraway places! But none of these misplaced “limited geographies” are 
		truly limited in one important detail: They all have  
In the Book of Mormon land northward, even before the abridgement of the 
record was complete, the Lord commanded  
It wasn’t that there were no candidates for a “narrow neck of land” right there 
in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, not far from Cumorah and the Smith 
home; or a river flowing northward in the same region, qualifying as “Sidon”. It 
wasn’t for lack of finds like mounds of earth, timber breastworks, old 
copper artifacts; and stories of great battles between long ago peoples of the 
region. Rather it was that Latter-day Saints, a persecuted people, turned to 
popular works for support - works like Stephens' 
bestseller, rather than remembering to 
consider in detail, the “New Covenant, even the Book of Mormon”. This is 
essentially how unauthentic traditions and a mass of confusion, regarding the 
book’s covenant lands, came about.  The general Finger Lake’s location of the Book of 
		Mormon land Cumorah is of course consistent 
		with the original "Mound-builder" setting. American historian and 
		journalist Hampton Sides is incredulous towards the proposal of an 
		alternate Cumorah. Sides remarks, “As fantastic as 
		it may seem, Sorenson actually argues that there were two Cumorahs: one in Mexico where the great battle took 
		place, and where Moroni buried a longer, unexpurgated version of the 
		golden Nephite records; and one near Palmyra, New York, where Moroni 
		eventually buried a condensed version of the plates after lugging them 
		on an epic trek of several thousand miles…” 
		(Sides,  
Today, there is no question in the minds of American History and Literature 
scholars as to the Book of Mormon’s legitimate setting. These scholars are not 
distracted by unauthentic traditions and misadventures that still intoxicate
and 
 befuddle 
the minds of so 
many Mormons (LDS and "Community of Christ"). American History scholars go straight to the best sources; which 
include, Latter-day Saint scripture and verifiable statements by Joseph Smith. 
Uncertainty about the location of Lehi’s covenant land of liberty remains a 
uniquely "Mormon" problem. But with improving 
attention to scripture, more Latter-day Saints are coming to recognize authentic lands 
of the Book of Mormon 
with a devotion akin to what others have felt all along for another Promised Land.
 
		
		“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.” 
 
		
		(Psalm 137:5)
 | 
| 
 | 
The Art of Herb Roe, depicting a mound builder city of earth, timber and plaster-like "cement"
 
 
| 
Additional References: 
[1]  
    
Silverberg, Robert, 
“…and the mound-builders vanished from the earth”
, American 
[2]       
May, Wayne N., This Land, They Came from the EAST, Vol. 3, pp. 
12-15
 
[3]       
Olive, Phyllis Carol, The Lost Lands of the Book of Mormon, pp. 
49-67 
 
[5]       
Priest, Josiah, American Antiquities, “Traits of the Mosaic 
History found among the 
[6]       
Stephens, John Lloyd, Incident of Travel in Central America   
[7]       
Millennial Star, Vol. 16, May 13, 1854, pg. 296 
[8]       
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14, pg. 325 [9] Roper, Matthew, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations”, section titled “Parley P. Pratt’s View”, BYU Maxwell Institute, 2004. 
[10]     
Richards,
 
[11]      Cannon, 
George Q., “Topics of the Times”, Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 22, No, 14, 
July 15, [12] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, pg. 267 
 
 |