William E. Berrett writes that there is no official position on Book of Mormon geography.
William E. Berrett et al., A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Department of Education, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1938), 43–45
The Book of Mormon is first of all a religious book, with a religious motive and a religious message. Like the Bible, it does not assume to be an authority on history, science, or geography. These questions are incidental to its real purpose and values and should be held to their relative importance when the book is studied. The absence at times of detailed historical and geographical continuity also may be explained by the fact that the Book of Mormon mainly represents only a synopsis of older and larger records.
The volume states that two small colonies from Jerusalem and one from the Tower of Babel found their way to America by way of the ocean. From the meagre description given in the text several different routes of travel have been estimated. It is not our purpose to discuss them here but merely to note that the available evidence has not settled the question and may not be sufficient to do so.
The book itself contains no map. It does not definitely locate on the American continents any land, hill, city, or river mentioned in its pages. Joseph Smith did not attempt a map and only a few isolated and fragmentary statements have come to us from early Church leaders on the subject. A difference of opinion exists as to whether these statements are conclusive evidences of geography or whether they represent only individual interpretations. However, several maps on the subject have been made and published. Others will no doubt follow. They have been prepared after sincere and diligent study. With the same references in the volume from which to draw these maps differ radically in area and location, in some cases to the extent of thousands of miles. Perhaps this is the best concrete evidence to prove how really limited and indefinite is the geographical evidence in the book.
None of these maps or theories of geography have been authorized or accepted by the Church up to the present time. They represent only the personal opinions of the authors. Present editions of the Book of Mormon contain no footnotes or references to geographical locations.
The first serious attempt to work out the geography of the Book ·of Mormon was made by George Reynolds. His two publications, "A Dictionary of the Book of Mormon" (1892) and "The Story of the Book of Mormon" outline his ideas as to where important Book of Mormon lands, rivers, cities and hills were located. Maps of the Americas which indicated these places were published and widely circulated. According to this theory, the most southern area mentioned in the record was near Valparaiso in Chili where the Lehi colony was supposed to have landed. The northern point was the Hill Cumorah in New York. Consequently the intermediate territory would be known and occupied by these people. Several other well-known publications advocate this same general concept of area but differ greatly in the location of subdivisions. They include "Helps to the Study of the Book of Mormon," by Joel Ricks, and "An Introduction to the Story of the Book of Mormon," by J. M. Sjodahl.
Other investigators working independently have challenged the theories just described. They include Colonel Willard Young, Jesse A. Washburn and Dr. Wells Jakeman. In many respects their conclusions differ widely. A general tendency is noticeable, however, to greatly reduce the area actually occupied and mentioned in Book of Mormon history. Central America, therefore, becomes increasingly important in the total picture.
Pivotal points of discussion for these groups have been the landing places of the three colonies, the location of the narrow neck of land, and the site of the Hill Ramah or Cumorah which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
In the face of these conflicting opinions, the reader will recognize that careful personal investigation should precede his conclusions and that no one is justified in representing any one theory as the official explanation of the Church. In fact a decision, on the subject is not necessary in order to obtain and enjoy the true spiritual values of the Book. Additional information which is sought and given in a spirit of service may help to solve this puzzling problem.