The following information has been carefully compiled to help the reader understand that all the various theories are simply
the product of conjecture, and the personal preferences of various theorists. None have been sanctioned by the Church at this point,
including the New York setting.
The Evolution of Book of Mormon Geography
One of the very first theories regarding the geographical location of the Book of Mormon came from a lone statement by Frederick G.
Williams who, sometime between 1836 and 1845, wrote down a comment about Lehi’s party landing at 30 degrees south latitude in Chile.
The original statement, which had no header or title, went as follows:
The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship, they traveled nearly a south,
south east direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of North Latitude, then nearly east to the Sea of Arabia then sailed
in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chili thirty degrees south Latitude.[1] (Chile is spelled
with an i in the original statement.)
We might be puzzled somewhat by the details contained in this statement, which give it a certain air of believability, but we must
remember that most of these directions were already given in the Book of Mormon. We learn of the direction Lehi and his family journeyed
once they left Jerusalem in 1 Nephi 16:13 where we read they traveled in a south, southeast direction. Continuing in that direction
would have taken them to 19 degrees north latitude. In chapter 17:1 we learn they "did travel eastward from that time forth." Thus,
eastward to the Sea of Arabia. Apparently early theorists assumed the directions given in 1 Nephi were not just the direction they
maintained while they were traveling on foot but may have been intended to include the general direction they traveled even after
they set sail. Therefore, in their efforts to follow the journey to a reasonable conclusion, simply followed the sailing party eastward
across the pacific to a likely landing site. The final piece of information given in the Williams’ statement indicates that Lehi and
his people sailed in a south east direction and landed in Chile along the western borders of South America. Now, since traveling southeastward,
as described in the comment by Williams, would have taken them in a direct course toward the continent of Australia, and beyond toward
the Antarctic, they would, of necessity, have had to turn due east at some point to reach the west coast of Chile at thirty degrees
south latitude.
In a paper entitled Did Lehi Land in Chile?, Frederick G. Williams, a great grandson of the former Williams, tried to piece together
his great grandfather’s reasoning on the matter. He speculates that since Chile is thirty degrees south latitude and Jerusalem is
at approximately thirty degrees north latitude, both sites would have had a similar climate and may be why that destination was chosen.
Therefore, the proposed Chilean landing site may have simply come about when those who were studying out the directions given in 1
Nephi attempted to follow the journey from the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula eastward to a plausible landing site in the new
world. Those in discussion on the matter evidently settled on Chile. Thus, a destination was produced which caught hold and lasted
for generations.
Many might reasonably question why the Williams statement was given such importance when numerous theories were being introduced at
the time. The answer to that question becomes more apparent when we realize that Williams was the Prophet’s scribe during the years
between 1833 and 1837, and because the proposed landing site of Lehi was found on the same sheet of paper with a known revelation
regarding John the Beloved. Thus, many Saints believed the proposed Chilean landing site must have been a revelation as well. One
thing cannot be overlooked, however - the revelation regarding John the Beloved was received in 1829 before Williams even joined the
Church. Therefore, the paper with the heading "A Revelation Concerning John the Beloved" appears to be nothing more than a note penned
by Mr. Williams in reference to the earlier revelation - possibly during his hours spent in the school of the prophets. Nonetheless,
Williams’ proposed landing site of Lehi eventually found its way into print.
Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little were the first to publish the Williams statement in A Compendium of the Doctrines of the
Gospel in 1882. The work was titled Lehi’s Travels. A Revelation to Joseph the Seer. Now, since there was no title given on the original
paper by Williams, both the title and the additional phrase, "A Revelation to Joseph the Seer" was simply added by either the authors
or the publisher. (It is interesting to note that the statement by Williams was not included in the 1857 edition of the Compendium which
was much closer to the time the statement was made and began to be circulated throughout the Church. If this had been an official
revelatory statement given to the Prophet for the benefit of the Church, surely it would have been included in the earlier edition.)
It must also be noted that the sheet of paper containing the reference to John the Beloved was clearly labeled "A Revelation concerning
John the beloved." yet the section of paper containing the Lehi’s travel statement had no title or header calling it a revelation
or anything else. It was found on a sheet of paper that had been separated into four sections by a line drawing. The top section contained
a copy of the revelation pertinent to John, the second had "Questions in English and Answers in Hebrew," and the third section had
writings titled "Characters on the Book of Mormon." The Lehi statement was found at the bottom of the page in the fourth section.
There was no reference to authorship or headers of any kind in this section. Therefore, no basis for it being considered a revelation
to Joseph could ever be justified. [2]
Even though the statement of Lehi’s journey continued to circulate throughout the Church, the fact that the proposed journey of Lehi
across the great waters was considered nothing more than conjecture rather than divine revelation was clearly manifest in the words
of Orson Pratt who made the following personal observation:
As near as we can judge from the description of the country contained in this record {Book of Mormon} the first landing place was
in Chile, not far from where the city of Valparaiso now stands.[3]
Even though no information about the physical geology of Lehi’s landing site is ever given in the scriptures, those who were following
the journey of Lehi eastward from the Arabian Peninsula may have still found the Chilean landing site plausible. Therefore, the theory
that Lehi landed in Chile continued to persist. In fact, Orson Pratt found the theory so appealing he successfully perpetuated it
for many years and unabashedly proclaimed "the western coast of South America" to be the site of Lehi’s landing.[4]
In 1908, in response to the growing belief that Lehi landed in Chile, B. H. Roberts, author of the Comprehensive History of the Church,spoke out against Richards and Little’s passage attributing the Lehi’s travel statement as a revelation to Joseph, the Seer, and made
the following statement:
Now, if no more evidence can be found to establish this passage in Richards and Little’s Compendium as a ‘Revelation to Joseph the
Seer,’ than the fact that it is found in the hand writing of Frederick G. Williams, and on the same sheet of paper with the body of
the revelation about John, the evidence of its being a ‘revelation to Joseph, the Seer,’ rests on a very unsatisfactory basis. [5]
*Note (Even though no original source can be given, the members of Frederick G. Williams’ family later declared the statement had
been falsely attributed to Joseph Smith. This important information should certainly help to settle the question as to whether the
statement came from Joseph Smith either verbally or by dictation.)[6]
A second theory surrounding the landing site of Lehi came into being around 1841, when a popular book of the day, which made the best
sellers list in both the U.S. and Europe, came to the attention of the Saints. The book, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapus
and Yucatan by Lloyd Stevens, dealt with the travels of the author through the ruins of various ancient civilizations found in Central
America, Chiapus and Yucatan. The information was so electrifying the early LDS congregation was soon convinced the ancient ruins
found in those lands must surely be artifacts from the Book of Mormon era. Over time tours were taken to Central America, books were
written and archeological digs commenced - all in an effort to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these were the remnants of the
long ago people described within the text. So popular were the findings of Mr. Stevens that articles began to appear in both The Millennial
Star and The Times and Season with many of the articles dealing exclusively with Stevens’ discoveries in Central America. It was during
this time of excitement that a second landing site for Lehi was proposed which placed him some 3000 miles north of the landing site
proposed by Williams (i.e. 30 degrees south latitude, in Chile.) We find the first reference to this second theory in The Times and
Seasons where we read:
Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land and landed a little south of the Isthmus
of Darien, and improved the country. . . [7]
It is interesting to note that even though Parley Pratt’s brother, Orson, firmly believed in the Chilean landing site, he managed
to successfully combine other landing site theories into his own. He postulated that while the Jaredites landed on the west coast
of North America, the Mulekites landed near the Isthmus of Darien and the Nephites landed in South America near Chile. Thus, he was
able to use the two most popular landing site theories of the day without compromising his own belief in the two continent theory.
Nonetheless, his views changed from time to time just as many others did. In 1848, he claimed the Nephites "inhabited the cities of
Yucatan" (Mexico).[8] Closer to the year 1851 he places Book of Mormon geography not only in the northern portion of South America
but in Central America as well, ". . . in the interior wilds of Central America, in the very region where the ancient cities described
in the Book of Mormon were said to exist."[9] It is fairly clear the books regarding Stevens’ travels in Central America had influenced
Pratt’s thinking considerably by this time. Even so, he believed in Lehi’s supposed Chilean landing site so completely he actually
added the references to Lehi landing thirty degrees south latitude in Chile in the footnotes in the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon.
(They were withdrawn from subsequent editions, however.) [10]
With the Pratt brothers openly preaching a Chilean landing site for Lehi, and the works of Lloyd Stevens fanning the flame of believability
in the Central American setting for the Book of Mormon lands, it is easy to see how the Saints would automatically lean in those directions.
Under such circumstances we can begin to understand how both the two continent theory and the Central American setting for the Book
of Mormon lands had become so widely accepted during the early periods of the Church.
* Note (It has been argued that since Joseph was ultimately responsible for the information printed in The Times and Seasons he must
have sanctioned the geographical editorials that had become so popular, for Joseph announces himself the responsible editor even though
John Taylor was the managing editor. John Taylor assumed editorial chair at end of 1841 and conducted publications until Feb., 1846.
During that time, both landing sites were postulated and neither were opposed by the Prophet who surely would have opposed one or
the other had he had a revelatory pronouncement of the true location of the Book of Mormon lands. As it turns out, he may not have
even been available for comment during that time, for Joseph and Orin Porter Rockwell were taken into custody in March 8, 1842, subsequently
released and went into hiding. Joseph spent much of the next five months on an island in the Mississippi River until his surrender
Jan. 3, 1843.[11] It was during this time that excerpts about the geography of the Book of Mormon were placed in The Times and Seasons,
including a statement about the Jaredites being led to a land "choice above all the lands of the earth," arriving in "the lake country
of America, (which we can take to mean the Great Lakes region), a statement totally at odds with earlier comments, yet also attributed
to Joseph Smith, Editor for the Times and Seasons. (Traits of the Mosaic History Found Among the Aztaeca Nations, Joseph Smith, Editor,
Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842, Volume 16, pp. 818-820.)
During the early periods of the Church there was an obvious lack of agreement as to the distribution of lands and cities within the
various Book of Mormon settings even though a great many theories were being produced at the time. This alone is a very interesting
point, for if Joseph had declared one particular site as the landing site of Lehi it is not likely the brethren or the membership
in general would have been so readily inclined to change the landing site from place to place over the years. Yet change it they did!
The earliest views of Book of Mormon geography centered around the two continent theory which was due in large part to the unsubstantiated
statement by Frederick G. Williams. Thus, in the 1830's the Saints generally believed that Lehi landed in Chile. South America was
thought to be the land southward, the narrow neck of land was thought to be the Isthmus of Panama and both Central and North America
were considered to be the land northward. By 1842, after the book entitled Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan came
out the setting changed considerably. The land southward was now considered by some to be Central America (possibly South America
as well.) The narrow neck was thought to be north of Guatemala, and the land northward was thought to be all lands northward of Guatemala
and Yucatan. Numerous other models appeared as well which were more or less variations of these.
In 1890, in response to the sheer number of varying theories being produced, George Q. Cannon, then first counselor in the First Presidency,
made the following statement:
‘There is a tendency, strongly manifested at the present time among some of the brethren, to study the geography of the Book of Mormon.
We have heard of numerous lectures, illustrated by suggestive maps, being derived on this subject during the present winter, generally
under the auspices of the Improvement Societies and Sunday Schools.’ He stated further that: ‘No two original investigators agree.
. . When, as in the case, one student places a certain city at the Isthmus of Panama, a second in Venezuela, and a third in Guiana
or northern Brazil, . . . they cannot be thus far apart in this one important point without relative positions being also widely separate.’
Consequently, ‘we see no necessity for maps of this character, because, at least, much would be left to the imagination of those who
prepare them.’[12]
Because of the various comments of the Brethren on the subject of Book of Mormon geography it should be very obvious that no one considered
the geography of the Book of Mormon events settled at this point in history - neither by Joseph nor Orson Pratt or anyone else. In
fact Cannon comments on that very subject:
The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented
to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles, who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further
information they are not prepared even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to
clear up many points now so obscure. . . . [13]
This statement alone should dispel any long held traditional beliefs that any of the proposed landing sites of Lehi was a settled
issue, for #1- Lehi’s proposed landing site in South America was not considered a revelation to Joseph, and #2- the theory that the
Isthmus of Darien was the narrow neck described in the Book of Mormon was simply the conjecture of those who embraced the believability
in the Central American setting which they held only in response to a gentile book which dealt exclusively with the discoveries of
ancient ruins in that land.
Now, since there was no official designation given by the Church as to the whereabouts of the ancient Book of Mormon lands, we might
reasonably ask ourselves why those theories that placed them in either South America or in Central America continued to persist for
so long? Especially in light of the fact the only known landmark we have is standing proud and tall in New York state - the beautiful
Hill Cumorah? Why, then, should we not be looking closer to that site? Furthermore, should we not be searching for a land described
as a land choice above all others instead of those that make up the third world countries of Central and South America? This over-riding
question begs to be answered. Why are we not searching for the Book of Mormon lands in a country destined to be the greatest nation
on earth as prophesied by numerous Book of Mormon prophets, for when we find the promised land - surely we will find the Book of Mormon
lands, and when we do so, they should fit the descriptions given within the text, just as we find in the New York Settihng. Yet,
the easiest path to follow is often the path of least resistance. Thus, speculations about the exotic lands to the south of them continued.
New theories sprang up on a regular basis, and even though there was no supportive evidence that Lehi landed in Chile many of the
Saints continued to lean toward a Central and South American setting for the Book of Mormon lands.
The theory that Lehi landed in Chile was so embedded in the minds of so many of the Saints by 1886, that when A. H. Cannon was asked
in his book Questions and Answers on the Book of Mormon: Q: 19 - "Where does the Prophet Joseph Smith tell us they landed?" The answer
came: "On the coast of Chile in South America."[14[ With that comment now in print the dye was cast, so to speak. Thus, we can easily
see how a theory, which began without any basis at all, was becoming more and more accepted as fact.
In 1918, the official word on the matter finally came out in still another Church magazine when Frederick J. Pack, Chairman of the
Gospel Doctrine Committee of the Church, made an official statement in The Instructor in response to the growing belief that Lehi
landed in Chile. His comments were in direct response to the statement in the Richards and Little’s Compendium supposedly revealing
the route followed by Lehi. He states:
‘Its authenticity, however, is subject to grave doubt, as witness the following; the only known source of authority is a single sheet
of manuscript presented to the Church Historian’s Office, in 1864, by Ezra G. Williams, son of Frederick G. Williams. . .’ But the
Compendium caption {A Revelation to Joseph the Seer} is not on this sheet, although the writing ‘bears a good deal of evidence of
having been written in the hand’ of F. G. Williams. ‘The Church has issued no information concerning the route followed by Lehi .
. . until that is done, teachers and Gospel Doctrine departments should refrain from expressing definite opinions.’ [15]
With the official word coming out that the Church had not yet made a pronouncement about the landing site of Lehi, a new surge of
excitement began. It would seem the doors were finally swinging open for new speculation in regard to Book of Mormon geography. At
long last, those who found it impossible to correlate those lands and cities described within the text with the familiar settings
of the day were now free to search in other areas for the lost lands of the Book of Mormon. New theories began to pop up everywhere.
Unfortunately, most speculation extended no further than Central and South America. The old theories were so deeply ingrained by this
time that students of the Book of Mormon felt the only challenge left to them was to find a geographical location that fit the descriptions
given within the text more precisely than the various older ones had. (Evidently they did not catch the vision that perhaps their
search for the lost lands of the Book of Mormon must be taken to new territories altogether.)
After the turn of the century all references to Lehi landing in Chile were withdrawn from the foot notes in the new edition of the
scriptures, and subsequent theories began to reflect the new wave of freedom on the subject of Book of Mormon geography. Even though
many Saints still embraced the two continent theory many others began to realize, after careful study on the matter, that the distance
traveled between those lands and cities described in the Book of Mormon was not very great. Thus, the tide was beginning to turn in
favor of the more limited geographical picture which incorporated just a few hundred miles. Several different landing sites for Lehi
were now being proposed and speculation on where the various cities and lands were to be located became a favorite topic of discussion
among the Saints. However, the greatest change that came about at this time was the purely arbitrary creation of a new geographical
setting for the Hill Cumorah.
Because of a renewed interest in Book of Mormon studies, it soon became apparent to many that the notion the Nephites and Jaredites
traveled thousands and thousands of miles from the southern continent to the final battleground around the Hill Cumorah in New York
State was not implied in the text. Therefore, alternative theories began to place a second Hill Cumorah in the Central American setting
nearer to those areas that had been popularly regarded as Book of Mormon lands. The Hill Cumorah in New York state was then relegated
to the status of a mere copy of the original by many Mesoamerican theorists.
Even though numerous attempts to locate the elusive lands of the Nephites and Jaredites continued to surface over the years, in 1950,
well into the next century, John A. Widtsoe reaffirmed the fact that the whereabouts of the Book of Mormon lands was still considered
a mystery. We read:
As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know. [16]
Even so, numerous attempts to pin-point the actual setting for the Book of Mormon continued. In John L. Sorenson’s book, The Geography
of Book of Mormon Events; A Source Book, he details 70 of the more popular Book of Mormon models with by far the greatest portion
of them dealing with the Mesoamerican setting. His own work has become the most widely accepted at the present time. Now, in all these
works no two are alike and one must wonder why that is? Could it be the Lord did not intend for the geographical location of the Book
of Mormon to come to light until his Saints had familiarized themselves with the precious doctrines contained therein? No other explanation
makes much sense, for dozens of highly educated people have been studying out the matter for decades. In D&C 84:57 we learn the
Lord placed the Church under condemnation for neglecting their study of the Book of Mormon. This would certainly make the matter much
more understandable, for it would not seem reasonable that the Lord would bless us with further light and knowledge under such circumstances.
However, as more and more of the Saints open their scriptures and study out the beautiful and powerful discourses contained within
their pages the condemnation will surely be lifted. Perhaps that time is drawing near. Even so, it is abundantly clear that if we
are to find the lost lands of the Book of Mormon we must approach the matter in an entirely different way, for the old methods certainly
have not brought us any closer to a consensus of opinion in regard to Book of Mormon geography.
In trying to come to some rational explanation as to why there has been no agreement as to the location of Zarahemla and the lands
occupied by the ancient Nephites and Jaredites, two things come to mind. First of all - It appears those who firmly held that the
Hill Cumorah in New York state was the very hill where Moroni hid up the Golden Plates simply could not reconcile the surrounding
territory with the descriptions given within the text. Therefore, they simply accepted, by default, a territory that gave them a land
northward and a land southward with a narrow neck between. (South America, Central America and all of North America.) Even though
that territory was only postulated in response to an unsubstantiated statement about Lehi landing in Chile, no other territory seemed
to fit any better at the time. Thus, it remained the traditional view of the Saints for generations.
Mesoamerican theorists, on the other hand, had no basis for their theories other than the exciting discoveries and the documented
travels of a gentile through that territory. They could not embrace the full hemispheric theory because the scriptures themselves
detail only a very limited geographical area. Thus, their contention that the lands were located in the limited territory of Central
America grew in popularity and have remained to this day. It would seem, therefore, that both theories rest on very sandy soil.
In the last 150 years no two Mesoamerican theorists have agreed on the location of the Book of Mormon lands. The primarily reason
for this is because, even though wonderful discoveries have been made in that area, none of the territories outlined so far fit the
geographical descriptions of the Book of Mormon lands sufficiently to allow scholars to come to an agreement on any one location.
Thus, it becomes more and more apparent that a change in our approach to the mystery surround the whereabouts of those lands occupied
by the Nephites and Jaredites must be considered.
Our first goal must be to discover what territory constitutes the land of promise, for numerous scriptures make it clear that the
ultimate destination for all three colonies was the promised land; a land choice above all others; a land where the Lord had every
hope of raising up a righteous people. Once that choice land is defined and located, we must begin to study out the descriptions of
lands and places described within the text very carefully, for those descriptions must correlate very closely with any proposed geographical
setting. Therefore, our only hope of finding the lost lands of the Nephites and Jaredites must take us directly to the scriptures
themselves, for only by doing so will we have any success in finding the elusive lands of the Book of Mormon. Western New
York fits in every way the cultural and spiritual heartland of the Book of Mormon, with offshoot branches spreading out from their
all across the continent, indeed, the entire hejmisphere. Learn More in We Are Israel, a work which provides ample evidence of the
similarities between the lands described in the scriptures and the western New York setting.
1- Frederick G. Williams III, Did Lehi Land in Chile? p. 1. LDS Archives, MSD 3408 fd 4 v, S. L. C., Utah.
2- Frederick G. Williams III, Did Lehi Land in Chile? pp. 9-10 FARMS - Wil-88.
3- Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 325, (11, Feb, 1872.)
4- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 373, quoting An InterestingAccount of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient Records, 3rd American ed., New
York, p. 18, 1842.
5- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 386, quoting B. H. Roberts, NewWitness for God, Vol. II. Deseret News; Salt Lake City, 1909 pp. 501-502.
6- Frederick G. Williams III, Did Lehi Land in Chile?, p. 7, FARMS Wil-8.
7- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 374, quoting The Times andSeasons (15, Sept, 1842), pp. 921- 922.
8- Millennial Star 10, 1848:347.
9- Frederick G. Williams III,Did Lehi Land in Chile, p. 2, FARMS, Orson Pratt, Work’s on the Doctrines of theGospel. Liverpool, Eng. 1848-51.
10- John Sorenson,The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 14.
11- Delbert W. Curtis, Christ in North America. p. 18,1843, quoting William Berrett, The Restored Church, Deseret
Book, pp. 224-225.
12- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 16, quoting The JuvenileInstructor 1890.
13- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p.17.
14- Ibid., p. 19, quoting Questions and Answers on the Book of Mormon. Designed Especially for the use of theSunday Schools in Zion, Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor’s Office, 1886, p. 24.
15- Ibid., p. 386.
16- John A. Widtsoe, Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?- Improvement Era, 53, 7 July, 1950.
17- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 35.
2- Frederick G. Williams III, Did Lehi Land in Chile? pp. 9-10 FARMS - Wil-88.
3- Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 325, (11, Feb, 1872.)
4- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 373, quoting An InterestingAccount of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient Records, 3rd American ed., New
York, p. 18, 1842.
5- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 386, quoting B. H. Roberts, NewWitness for God, Vol. II. Deseret News; Salt Lake City, 1909 pp. 501-502.
6- Frederick G. Williams III, Did Lehi Land in Chile?, p. 7, FARMS Wil-8.
7- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 374, quoting The Times andSeasons (15, Sept, 1842), pp. 921- 922.
8- Millennial Star 10, 1848:347.
9- Frederick G. Williams III,Did Lehi Land in Chile, p. 2, FARMS, Orson Pratt, Work’s on the Doctrines of theGospel. Liverpool, Eng. 1848-51.
10- John Sorenson,The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 14.
11- Delbert W. Curtis, Christ in North America. p. 18,1843, quoting William Berrett, The Restored Church, Deseret
Book, pp. 224-225.
12- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 16, quoting The JuvenileInstructor 1890.
13- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p.17.
14- Ibid., p. 19, quoting Questions and Answers on the Book of Mormon. Designed Especially for the use of theSunday Schools in Zion, Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor’s Office, 1886, p. 24.
15- Ibid., p. 386.
16- John A. Widtsoe, Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?- Improvement Era, 53, 7 July, 1950.
17- John Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 35.
