It has become appar­ent to me that the rea­son why it has been impos­si­ble to pin loca­tions for the Book of Mor­mon till now is because the Book of Mor­mon men­tions six seas and the nar­row pas­sage and nar­row neck are two sep­a­rate geo­graph­ic features.

The nar­row pas­sage is not between the east sea or the west sea it’s between the East Sea and the Sea East. The nar­row neck is between the Sea West and Sea East. The Book of Mor­mon also men­tions two rivers not just one.

The six sea mod­el shows con­sis­ten­cy with the Book of Mor­mon, Doc­trine & Covenants, state­ments made by Joseph Smith, arche­o­log­i­cal sites and geo­graph­ic features.

I’m look­ing for incon­sis­ten­cies because I have not found any. If you are famil­iar with the geog­ra­phy of the Book of Mor­mon and believe you can find dis­crep­an­cies feel free to share with the rea­son and verse or vers­es to back up your reasoning.

At this point I have mapped the rel­e­vant chap­ters in Alma and Mor­mon. Alma Chap­ter describes all the bound­aries of the Nephite ter­ri­to­ries and is the most impor­tant when it comes to under­stand­ing Book of Mor­mon geography


Six Seas

1) East Sea (Lake Erie): Alma 50:8, Alma 50:13, Alma 52:13

2) Sea East (Lake Ontario) Alma 22:27, Hela­man 3:8, Hela­man 11:20

3) West Sea (Lake Michi­gan) Alma 22:32–33, Alma 50:11, Alma 52:11–12, Alma 53:8, Alma 63:5, Hela­man 4:17,

4) Sea West (Lake Huron) Alma 22:27, Hela­man 3:8, Hela­man 11:20

5) Sea South (Gulf of Mex­i­co) Hela­man 3:8

6) North Sea (Lake Supe­ri­or) Hela­man 3:8

Two rivers men­tioned in the Book of Mormon 

1) Riv­er Sidon has east and west banks (Mis­sis­sip­pi River)

2) Anoth­er riv­er men­tioned in the Book of Mor­mon runs east to west and flows into the head of the Riv­er Sidon (Ohio Riv­er) Alma 22:27



Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Heber Frank
April 21, 2018 9:49 am

You should also con­sid­er the Andes with the Ama­zon basin under­wa­ter before Christ mod­el. Start here: https://​goo​.gl/​fP1yCS This is the first of 33 posts over­see­ing this mod­el. To go to the next blog post, use the Menu on the right side of the webpage.

December 5, 2016 2:47 pm

hi, i came to the con­clu­sion about a year ago that miq maq tribes writ­ten lan­guage was a mix of chaldean, and some oth­er lan­guages.. and impressed that u made that con­nec­tion. they also have con­i­cal hats, druze style star sym­bol amongst oth­er shared traits.. i am not mor­mon. i am maronite stock lebanese and finnish ances­to­ry.. i am agno-athe­ist but keep an open mind. i have some peo­ple i work with that are mor­mon and i love them and have good rela­tion­ship with them. (you guys aren’t that bad when u aren’t knock­ing on my damned door before noon) any­ways.. there is much we could dis­cuss if you wish. you have good base of noticed par­al­lels. i have alot of aspects and con­sid­er­a­tions from dif­fer­ing origins/perspective that might be able to help you fill in some miss­ing links. i am con­sid­er­ing his­to­ry for pro­fes­sion, but when i was piec­ing… Read more »

Doug Christensen
September 21, 2016 2:20 pm

This arti­cle is a per­fect exam­ple of mak­ing assump­tions on top of assump­tions on top of assump­tions.….….. And, it only con­cerns itself with bod­ies of water (BofM men­tions 4 seas, not 6) All para­me­ters must be con­sid­ered and fold­ed into the pro­posed loca­tion. This can­not be a cafe­te­ria exer­cise. Most illus­tra­tive is that heart­landers dis­cour­age their fol­low­ers to read the works of estab­lished LDS schol­ars, of which there are many.

Reply to  Dave Mack
October 6, 2016 8:09 am

It is ridicu­lous to offer mon­ey if a dis­crep­an­cy can be found in a fan­ta­sy. David, the real dis­crep­an­cy is that the Book of Mor­mon, Doc­trine and Covenants, state­ments made by Joseph Smith and your so-called research are all flawed. Real­i­ty and the true ori­gins of Amer­i­can Indi­ans and their true his­to­ry is beyond your grasp. For read­ers who might not be aware of what David did to me, he pre­sent­ed me with a link to a fake tribe that is noth­ing more than a group of whites pre­tend­ing to be Indi­ans. David offered that to me as a sup­port to his so-called research. David’s attempts to present his non­sense has met with pret­ty much the same respons­es across the var­i­ous LDS themed boards. Mor­mon Dis­cus­sions Board, Mor­mon Dia­logue and Dis­cus­sions Board, etc. He had some pos­i­tive reac­tion in one of the most far out board, the LDS Free­dom Forum.… Read more »