This article first appeared in Sic et Non. To see the original article, CLICK HERE.
I came across the claim today — far and away not for the first time, but I was reminded of it yet again this morning — that “intellectually bankrupt Mopologists” such as I, with our notions of a relatively small (i.e., non-hemispheric and not even continental) geography for the Book of Mormon and of a relatively small population of Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites surrounded by other peoples, have redefined the Book of Mormon. We’ve made it a lineage history, although supposedly not a single apostle or prophet has ever defined it that way — nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. Thus, we’ve clumsily destroyed the Book of Mormon in our hopeless and desperate attempt to save it.
However, as William James used to say, the only thing needed to disprove the claim that all crows are black is one white crow. Accordingly, I give you President Anthony W. Ivins, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, speaking in the Church’s April 1929 General Conference:
So I say one by one criticisms which have been made regarding the Book of Mormon are falling by the way through the investigation of scientists who understand their business. I thank the Lord for them and that which they are undertaking to do. I have never had any fear that a thing would be discovered to disprove the truths contained in this book.
We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.
There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true. (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report [April 1929], 16.)
So much for the claim that not a single apostle or prophet has ever viewed the Book of Mormon in such a way. One white crow.
And what about the allegation that the Book of Mormon doesn’t support the idea of a limited geography that is contained within, but is not identical to, the Americas? For that, I refer you to the opening pages of John L. Sorenson’s 1986 classic An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, where Professor Sorenson systematically examines the geographical indicia — e.g. the distances and directions — given within the text. He demonstrates that a limited geographical model is not only permitted by the Book of Mormon but, in fact, demanded by it.
Professor Sorenson published An Ancient American Setting nearly four decades ago. President Ivins delivered his Conference address more than ninety-six years ago. I think that enough time has elapsed that critics of the Church should up their game. They should no longer get away with alleging that not a single apostle or prophet has ever claimed that there might have been peoples in the New World other than those who figure prominently in the Book of Mormon. Enough time has passed that detractors who flatly declare that the Book of Mormon text does not admit of a limited-geographical reading should be called on it.
To see the original article, CLICK HERE.
Ronald BarnesAugust 30, 2025
When working with partial facts, we use assumptions to help us supplement them. Every theory I have read has assumed that the land masses of the Americans have not changed over the past thousands of years. I believe that they have changed, even dramatically, over that time. To me, the narrative of the book does indicate a large area, but not as large as others assume. I base this partly on the geological history of the area. Also, the Indians did not regard distances as the obstacles that we do. The Illini would travel over 400 miles on foot to fight an enemy. Plains Indians would ride horses from Canada into Mexico on raiding parties. Plus, the writers of the Book of Mormon could only write about those populations in the areas where they resided. I’m sure there were populations, even among their own peoples, that they were not aware of.
Corey D.August 29, 2025
Ultimately the geographical areas of where the Book of Mormon took place are not the most important, it's the spiritual teachings that set it apart but it does make for interesting, albeit sometimes heated discussion. I myself have always been curious about Joseph Smith's comments (found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) that Lehi and his family landed in Northern Chile, most LDS historians, archaeologists, etc., don't give that much credence. I served my mission in the southern part of Chile back in the 70's, I was serving in a city called Chillan, one evening we had stopped to visit a man who we had left a Book of Mormon with, we asked if he had read any of it and did he have any questions, he said he had started to read it and was intrigued that the Nephites claimed to have come from the Middle East (that was not the usual story at the time for who settled in the New World) but then told us an interesting story about some writings that had been discovered out in the cordillera (Andes) and what he knew or had been told they were arabic writings. I got transfered not long after that and never had a chance to check out the story or possibly go out and see them but have always remembered that incident.