Appearance
Geography
The claim:
"Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region where Joseph Smith lived."[1]
The CES Letter presents two side-by-side maps from Vernal Holley's 1983 pamphlet, a table of 20+ name pairs, the Comoros/Moroni pirate connection, and the Great Lakes "narrow neck of land." The visual is designed to do the work: look how similar these are.
How much of this holds up when you check the dates, the geography, and the sources?
The Holley maps: names that didn't exist yet
Holley's theory requires Joseph Smith to have borrowed place names from his local area. Several of those places weren't named until decades after the Book of Mormon was published.
| Holley's "source" place | Book of Mormon name | Date named | Years after 1830 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Angola, NY | Angola | 1854 | 24 |
| Tecumseh, ON | Teancum | 1912 | 82 |
| Minoa, NY | Minon | 1895 | 65 |
| Mantua Village, OH | Manti | 1898 | 68 |
| Alma, WV | Alma | 1884 | 54 |
| Antioch, OH | Ani-Anti | 1837 | 7 |
| Boaz, WV | Boaz | 1878 | 48 |
| Sodom, OH | Sidom | ~1840 | ~10 |
A theory that requires borrowing from places that didn't exist yet isn't evidence. It's a coincidence mistaken for a pattern.[2][3]
Only ~6% of names "match"
The Book of Mormon contains 337 proper names, of which 188 are unique -- not found in the Bible.[4] Holley found roughly 20 alleged parallels. That's less than 6%.
Strip out the names that postdate 1830 and the ones borrowed from the Bible (Jerusalem, Jordan, Boaz, Ramah, Shiloh), and the list of genuinely puzzling pre-1830 matches drops to about ten.[2:1]
Several of those ten are loose sound-alikes: Oneida / Onidah, Lehigh / Lehi, Sherbrooke / Shurr. The kind of partial resemblance you'd find between any large body of names and any large map.
The geography doesn't map
The Holley overlay doesn't just cherry-pick names. It contradicts the Book of Mormon's own internal geography at nearly every point.
| Location | Book of Mormon says | Holley's map places it |
|---|---|---|
| Jacobugath | "Far in the land northward" (3 Nephi 7:12) | Land southward |
| Morianton | Near the "east sea" (Alma 50:25) | Near the western lakes |
| Lehi-Nephi | Western coast landing site | Eastern side of the map |
| Ramah / Cumorah | Same hill (Ether 15:11) | 280 miles apart |
| Teancum | Near "the city Desolation" by the seashore | Far from the narrow neck |
A map that contradicts the text it claims to explain isn't evidence of borrowing. It's evidence of forced fitting.[5]
The sharpshooter's fallacy
You can't create a Book of Mormon map from American cities and then use that map as evidence the Book of Mormon was based on American cities. That's circular reasoning -- the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.[2:2]
The method guarantees "hits." North America contains thousands of place names. The Book of Mormon contains hundreds. If you search a large enough dataset for partial matches, you will always find some.
Runnells himself has debated removing this claim, recognizing it may undermine his broader case.
Bottom line: The Holley maps use names that didn't exist in 1830, contradict the Book of Mormon's own geography, and cover less than 6% of its names. The method itself is circular. This is one of the CES Letter's weakest arguments.
The Comoros / Moroni theory
The CES Letter's second geographic argument:
"Off the eastern coast of Mozambique in Africa is an island country called 'Comoros.' Prior to its French occupation in 1841, the islands were known by its Arabic name, 'Camora.' ... The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly 'Camora')? Moroni."[6]
The claim is that Joseph borrowed "Cumorah" and "Moroni" from Captain Kidd pirate lore connected to the Comoros Islands.
The timeline doesn't work
The city of Moroni wasn't named until 1876 -- 46 years after the Book of Mormon was published.[7] Joseph Smith couldn't borrow a name that didn't exist.
A computerized search of Charles Johnson's 1724 General History of the Pyrates -- the standard pirate history of the era -- finds no mention of "Moroni," "Cumorah," or "Comora."[7:1] The CES Letter cites Pomeroy Tucker (writing in 1867, decades after the fact) and a Wayne Sentinel article about treasure-hunting culture. Neither mentions the Comoros Islands.
No map, no connection
The CES Letter references an 1808 map of Africa showing "Camora." An 1808 map of Africa contains hundreds of place names. Cherry-picking one and assuming Joseph Smith saw it is speculation without documentary support.[8]
The 1830 edition spells it "Camorah" -- not "Camora" or "Comoros." Joseph later standardized it to "Cumorah," aligning it with the consistent "cum-" prefix in Book of Mormon names (Cumeni, Cumenihah). Spelling standardization was routine in early 19th-century publishing.[7:2]
If it were obvious, someone would have noticed
If "Cumorah" and "Moroni" were common knowledge from pirate stories, why didn't a single contemporary critic make the connection during Joseph Smith's lifetime?[8:1]
Bottom line: The Comoros theory requires a city name that didn't exist until 1876, pirate sources that don't mention the relevant names, and an African map Joseph is never documented to have seen. This isn't evidence. It's speculation stacked on speculation.
550+ geographic references, remarkably consistent
The CES Letter's geography section never engages the Book of Mormon's strongest geographic evidence. It skips the text's internal consistency, the confirmed Old World trail, and the archaeological inscriptions from Lehi's era.
The Book of Mormon contains over 550 passages with geographic information spread across 531 pages.[9] A 2017 study tested these for internal consistency -- whether places described hundreds of pages apart maintain the same spatial relationships. The finding: only two minor ambiguities in the entire text.
| Feature | Consistency across the text |
|---|---|
| Land of Nephi | Always described as up (highlands) |
| Zarahemla | Always described as down (lowlands) |
| Major migrations | Always northward |
| Travel times | Proportional -- ~20 days between Nephi and Zarahemla |
| East seashore cities | Same sequential order in every military campaign (Moroni, Lehi, Morianton, Omner, Gid, Mulek) |
Grant Hardy, a non-LDS historian, observed that "one would assume the author worked from charts and maps."[10] Emma Smith testified Joseph "had neither manuscript nor book to read from."[11]
The text was dictated orally in roughly 60 working days. No notes. No outline. No maps. And the geography is consistent across the entire book.
John L. Sorenson: "Inconsistencies that might be expected of a fraudulent work... are notably absent."[12]
Nahom and Lehi's Trail
The Old World geography of 1 Nephi is independently verifiable -- and it has been verified. Nahom, the Valley of Lemuel, and the coastal site of Bountiful all match Nephi's textual descriptions in ways Joseph Smith couldn't have known. Three inscribed altars bearing the tribal name NHM were discovered near Marib, Yemen, dating to the 7th-6th century BC -- Lehi's era. The incense trail turns east at precisely the location the text requires.[13][14]
These correlations are covered in depth in the Archaeology article, including Nahom's name match, burial site, eastward turn, and six additional locations along Lehi's trail confirmed by field research in Arabia.
The Limited Geography Model is not a retreat
The CES Letter implies that the Limited Geography Model (LGM) is a modern apologetic invention -- a retreat from what Joseph Smith and early prophets taught. The historical record says otherwise.
It predates the CES Letter by a century
| Year | Scholar | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| 1917 | Louis Edward Hills | First fully limited geography -- both Ramah and Cumorah in southern Mexico |
| 1920s | Willard Young (Brigham Young's son) | All events in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador |
| 1928 | Jean Driggs | Limited geography from internal textual evidence -- journey durations imply 100-300 miles |
| 1938 | Church Dept. of Education | Acknowledged "a general tendency... to greatly reduce the area actually occupied" |
| 1950s | M. Wells Jakeman (BYU) | Developed the Tehuantepec model |
| 1985 | John L. Sorenson | An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon -- foundational text |
| 2013 | John L. Sorenson | Mormon's Codex -- 800+ pages, 400+ Mesoamerican correspondences |
The text itself demands a limited area. A 21-day wilderness journey with "flocks, grains, and all their possessions" suggests 100-300 miles -- not continental distances. Mormon's 570-word geographic summary in Alma 22:27-34 describes a compact land with a narrow neck "a day and a half's journey" wide (~30 miles).[15]
Church leaders have consistently declined to endorse a specific geography
- George Q. Cannon (1890): "It would be unwise for the church to endorse any particular map."
- President Joseph F. Smith (1903): Location "not of vital importance."
- Anthony W. Ivins (1929): "There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question."
- Elder John A. Widtsoe (1950): Joseph Smith "did not say where... Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know."[15:1]
The Church's current position: "The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas."[16]
In 1920, the Church removed Orson Pratt's geographic footnotes from the Book of Mormon, signaling no authoritative position on geography. The neutral stance has been consistent for over a century.
The Hill Cumorah question
Worth Acknowledging
The Hill Cumorah is a genuine tension -- not a manufactured one. Some early leaders associated the New York hill with the Book of Mormon's final battle site. The archaeological and textual evidence points in a different direction. Honest engagement requires acknowledging both.
The New York hill is archaeologically clean
John E. Clark, BYU archaeologist (PhD, University of Michigan), surveyed the hill and its surroundings:
"Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill. No artifacts, no walls, no trenches, no arrowheads. The area immediately surrounding the hill is similarly clean."[17]
Clark concluded: "The archaeology of New York -- and specifically the Hill Cumorah -- is persuasive evidence that Book of Mormon peoples did not live in that region."
The text allows two Cumorahs
Mormon 6:6 states that Mormon hid records "in the hill Cumorah" but gave a few plates to his son Moroni. This textual separation matters. Mormon's Cumorah -- the site of the final battle -- and the hill where Moroni eventually deposited the plates decades later need not be the same location.[17:1]
David Palmer identified 13 requirements the Book of Mormon's battle Cumorah must satisfy: near the eastern seacoast, near the narrow neck, temperate climate, volcanic zone, and others. The New York hill meets very few of them.[18]
Joseph Smith's own statements are ambiguous
Joseph never explicitly called the New York hill "Cumorah" in his own writings. His only reference -- "Glad tidings from Cumorah" (D&C 128:20) -- doesn't specify a geographic location.[17:2]
The New York drumlin is a glacial gravel deposit. The cave of records described by Brigham Young (secondhand, 1877) is geologically impossible in this formation. No one has found it.[18:1]
The tension is real. Some early leaders believed the New York hill was the battle site. The physical evidence doesn't support that reading.
The Bible has the same "problem"
The CES Letter treats the absence of identified Book of Mormon sites as uniquely damaging. It isn't. Mount Sinai has over two dozen proposed locations and no scholarly consensus. The Exodus route has been contested for centuries. The Anchor Bible Dictionary says of Sodom and Gomorrah: "It is highly uncertain, if not improbable, that the vanished cities... will ever be recovered."
Only slightly more than half of all place names mentioned in the Bible have been located -- and biblical archaeology has had centuries more research.[19] For more on how Book of Mormon archaeology compares to the Bible, see Archaeology.
No one argues the Bible is fiction because Mount Sinai hasn't been identified. The standard isn't "find every site or the text is false."
Thomas Stuart Ferguson -- an outdated authority
The CES Letter quotes Thomas Stuart Ferguson's 1976 letter: "You can't set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere -- because it is fictional."
Ferguson was not an archaeologist. He held a law degree and "never studied archaeology or related disciplines at a professional level."[20] His last publication was in 1967. He died in 1983 -- before Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting (1985), before the Nahom altars were discovered, before the Valley of Lemuel was identified, before Bountiful candidates were explored. For more context on Ferguson, see Archaeology.
The evidence the CES Letter ignores
The CES Letter's geography section leans on two weak arguments -- the Holley maps and the Comoros connection -- while ignoring the evidence that actually matters:
- 550+ geographic references across 531 pages, internally consistent, dictated in ~60 working days with no notes or maps[9:1]
- Nahom -- an ancient place name, confirmed by inscribed altars dated to Lehi's era, in the correct location on the incense trail, with the correct eastward turn (see Archaeology for the full treatment)[13:1]
- Lehi's Trail -- seven identifiable locations along the Arabian Peninsula, each matching Nephi's textual descriptions in ways Joseph Smith couldn't have guessed[21]
- A naming system with Hebrew etymologies, no Baal names, and 16+ names confirmed by inscriptions discovered after 1830 (see Archaeology)[4:1]
- A limited geography demanded by the text itself, proposed as early as 1917, and consistent with the Church's century-long refusal to endorse a specific map[15:2]
Bottom line: The Holley maps use names that didn't exist in 1830, contradict the Book of Mormon's own geography, and cover less than 6% of its names. The Comoros theory requires a city name from 1876 and pirate sources that don't mention the relevant names. Meanwhile, the text contains 550+ internally consistent geographic references, an Old World trail confirmed by field research in Arabia, and a place name -- Nahom -- verified by archaeological inscriptions from Lehi's era. The CES Letter picked the weakest geographic evidence to present and ignored the strongest.
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Book of Mormon," no. 7, pp. 13-16. ↩︎
"Theory of Book of Mormon place names from area around Joseph Smith's home," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_place_names_from_area_around_Joseph_Smith's_home ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
"Want to Debunk or Defend the Vernal Holley Maps? We've Got You Covered!" Wheat & Tares, May 18, 2017. https://wheatandtares.org/2017/05/18/want-to-attack-the-vernal-holley-maps-want-to-defend-the-vernal-holley-maps-weve-got-you-covered/ ↩︎
"Book of Mormon Evidence: Many Names," Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/many-names ↩︎ ↩︎
L. Ara Norwood, review of Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1, no. 1 (1989): 80-88. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol1/iss1/10/ ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Book of Mormon," no. 7, pp. 15-16. ↩︎
"The Hill Cumorah," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Hill_Cumorah ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Sarah Allen, "The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 6," FAIR Blog (2021). https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/08/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-6 ↩︎ ↩︎
Tyler Griffin, "Book of Mormon Geographical References: Internal Consistency Taken to a New Level," FAIR Conference, August 2017. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2017/internal-consistency-taken-to-a-new-level ↩︎ ↩︎
Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). ↩︎
Emma Smith, interview by Joseph Smith III, February 1879. Published in Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-290. ↩︎
John L. Sorenson, "Interpreting Book of Mormon Geography," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/interpreting-book-mormon-geography ↩︎
S. Kent Brown, "'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 66-68. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/the-place-that-was-called-nahom-new-light-from-ancient-yemen ↩︎ ↩︎
S. Kent Brown, "New Light: Nahom and the 'Eastward' Turn," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 111-112, 120. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/new-light-nahom-and-eastward-turn ↩︎
Matthew Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/limited-geography-and-book-mormon-historical-antecedents-and-early-interpretations ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
"Book of Mormon Geography," Gospel Topics, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography ↩︎
John E. Clark, "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 13, no. 1 (2004). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol13/iss1/15/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
"The Hill Cumorah," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Hill_Cumorah ↩︎ ↩︎
"Archaeology," Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/book-of-mormon-1/archaeology/ ↩︎
"Thomas Stuart Ferguson and Mormon archaeology," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Thomas_Stuart_Ferguson_and_Mormon_archaeology ↩︎
"Archaeological Evidence for 7 Locations on Lehi's Journey," Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/blog/archaeological-evidence-for-7-locations-on-lehi-s-journey-to-the-promised-land ↩︎