Methodology: How This Book of Mormon Geography Model Was Developed
This Book of Mormon geography model was developed using a text-first, constraint-based methodology. The goal was not to force the Book of Mormon into a preconceived map, nor to prove a single location conclusively, but to construct a coherent, internally consistent geographic model that fits the text as an ancient record.
The process prioritizes what the Book of Mormon actually says, how ancient peoples described geography, and what kinds of travel, distances, and landscapes were realistic in the ancient world.
What follows explains the principles and steps used to build the model.
1. Text Comes First
The Book of Mormon itself is treated as the primary data source.
Before considering archaeology, modern geography, or external theories, the text was analyzed for:
-
Named lands, cities, rivers, and regions
-
Directional language (northward, southward, east, west, up, down)
-
Travel times and travel methods
-
Relative distances between locations
-
Descriptions of terrain (wilderness, hills, valleys, rivers, seas)
-
Military movements and logistical constraints
No location was proposed unless it could first satisfy the internal textual requirements.
2. Relative Geography Over Exact Coordinates
The Book of Mormon does not provide latitude, longitude, or scale maps. Therefore, this model focuses on relative relationships, not precise measurements.
Priority was given to questions such as:
-
Is City A consistently described as north or south of City B?
-
Can the stated travel times between locations be realistically achieved on foot or by river?
-
Do rivers behave as the text describes (headwaters, crossings, downstream movement)?
-
Do border cities function like border cities in ancient warfare?
Exact modern coordinates are used only as approximate reference points, not claims of pinpoint identification.
3. Ancient Travel Assumptions (Not Modern Ones)
All movement is evaluated using ancient travel norms, not modern transportation.
The model assumes travel by:
-
Foot
-
River (canoes, barges, rafts)
-
Short portages between waterways
It does not assume:
-
Roads like Roman highways
-
Wheeled vehicles
-
Motorized or sailing ships in the New World narrative
-
Modern surveying or cartography
Distances are evaluated using realistic ancient travel ranges:
-
10–20 miles per day on foot
-
Faster downstream river travel
-
Slower upstream or wilderness travel
4. Language Is Interpreted as Ancient, Not Modern
Key geographic terms are interpreted according to ancient usage, not modern technical definitions.
Examples:
-
“Near” does not mean “adjacent” or “on the shoreline,” but within the same regional system or a short journey away.
-
“Sea” is treated as a major body of water or boundary, not necessarily an ocean coast with ports.
-
“Up” and “down” are understood primarily as elevation and river flow, not compass directions.
Importantly, the Book of Mormon consistently distinguishes between:
-
Locations “by the seashore” (explicitly coastal)
-
Locations “near the sea” (inland but oriented toward it)
This distinction is preserved throughout the model.
5. Fixed Anchors Before Expansion
The model was built outward from a small number of high-confidence anchor points, rather than mapping everything at once.
Anchor locations were chosen because they are:
-
Frequently mentioned
-
Richly described
-
Tied to rivers, crossings, or borders
-
Central to multiple narratives
Once an anchor was placed, surrounding locations were tested relative to it, rather than independently.
This prevents circular reasoning and helps expose inconsistencies early.
6. Military and Logistical Plausibility
Warfare accounts in Alma and Helaman were treated as logistical stress tests.
For any proposed location, the model asks:
-
Could armies realistically move between these cities in the timeframes described?
-
Do retreat paths make sense geographically?
-
Are border cities placed where border cities would actually function?
-
Do headwaters, crossings, and choke points behave as expected?
If a placement required unrealistic speed, implausible terrain, or ignored supply realities, it was rejected.
7. Archaeology as Plausibility, Not Proof
Archaeology is used secondarily, and only to test plausibility.
The model does not assume:
-
That Book of Mormon cities must be archaeologically identified
-
That stone ruins or inscriptions must survive
-
That absence of evidence is evidence of absence
Instead, archaeology is asked a simpler question:
Is there evidence that people lived, farmed, built, traveled, and organized societies in this region during the relevant time periods?
If the answer is yes, the region remains viable. If the region is archaeologically implausible (no habitation, no resources, no realistic settlement), it is rejected.
8. Lands vs. Cities Are Kept Distinct
The Book of Mormon frequently refers to lands that contain multiple cities.
This model strictly distinguishes:
-
Lands (large regions, often with multiple cities)
-
Cities (specific population centers)
This avoids the common mistake of forcing every name onto a single dot.
9. Willingness to Revise and Reject
A core principle of the methodology is falsifiability.
If a proposed location:
-
Conflicts with the text
-
Breaks travel realism
-
Requires redefining clear language
-
Creates contradictions elsewhere in the model
…it is revised or discarded.
No placement is protected for ideological reasons.
10. Conclusions Are Provisional, Not Dogmatic
This model does not claim to be the only possible geography, nor does it claim definitive proof.
Instead, it presents:
-
A coherent, internally consistent geographic framework
-
One that fits the text without forcing it
-
One that can be evaluated, refined, or challenged
The goal is transparency, not finality.
Purpose of This Model
This project exists to:
-
Help readers visualize the Book of Mormon narrative
-
Demonstrate that the text contains real, testable geographic logic
-
Encourage careful reading rather than assumption
-
Provide a framework that others can examine critically
Whether one ultimately agrees with every placement or not, the methodology itself is meant to be clear, honest, and reproducible.