Select Page

The Heartland Versus Mesoamerica
Part 1: A Foundation for Comparison

Part 1  ⎜ Part 2  ⎜ Part 3  ⎜ Part 4  ⎜ Part 5  ⎜ Part 6  ⎜ Part 7  ⎜ Part 8  ⎜ Part 9  ⎜ Part 10  ⎜ Part 11  ⎜ Part 12  ⎜ Part 13

This post begins a series of blog posts in which I will compare two proposed locations for the Book of Mormon. An important caveat is that I have published on the Mesoamerican model and prefer it. Having stated that I do begin with bias, I will nevertheless attempt to deal with evidence more than prejudice. I will attempt to represent comparable aspects of both the Heartland and Mesoamerican models. Also important is the declaration that I present this information as my own studied opinion and intend no implication that my ideas represent The Interpreter Foundation or the Interpreter journal.

The very first point of comparison is that it is going to be difficult to make the comparison. The reason is that the two geographic models are built on completely different concepts of how one should arrive at a solution to the question of where the Book of Mormon took place. Although both models produce maps that reflect the locations of Book of Mormon named places, there is an extreme difference in how the models are created.

John L. Sorenson highlights what he considers the foundation for searching for a real-world location of the Book of Mormon:

The first place to seek for knowledge of the Book of Mormon context is in the book itself. Going back to the original is the basis of sound scholarship whenever anyone works with an ancient text. . . .

Building an internally consistent map is but the first step. Next we must match up Book of Mormon lands and rivers and mountains with actual places, location for location, as scholars have done for much of the information in the Bible.[1]

Although Sorenson’s model has become the most widely accepted of the Mesoamerican models for the Book of Mormon, Sorenson was not the only one who created an internal model. Some of those who created internal models never attempted the elaboration of attempting to place that model on a real-world location. The variation in the internal maps echoes the wide variation of the real-world models that have been proposed (covering, apart from the Heartland or Mesoamerican models, a Great Lakes Model, a Delmarva Peninsula model, a Baja model, South American models, and Hemispheric models).

The following are different models created to demonstrate the relationships of Book of Mormon internal locations:

Two more modern examples:

There are others, but these four are representative. Notice that while different, they all propose general similarities. Although the one published in the Improvement Era does not have the overall hourglass shape of the other three, it nevertheless places a narrow neck on the northern end of the Nephite lands.[2]

Note how different the shape of the map becomes when the conceptual map, based on the Book of Mormon text, is compared to the two Heartland maps:

As with different conceptual models, these latter two Heartland maps were created by two different people.[3] What is immediately noticeable is that while both the Neville and Coon maps are placed in the eastern half of the United States, they have no obvious narrow neck as do the conceptual models. Of course, their geographies do place a narrow neck on the map, but how is it that the conceptual models can be so dramatically different from the Neville and Coon maps?

The conceptual maps and the Heartland maps begin with very different starting points. Where the conceptual maps begin with the Book of Mormon, the Heartland maps began with the commitment to the Hill Cumorah: “For over 10 years, the majority of people did not doubt that Cumorah was really in New York, and the prophets were consistent in their teachings about that fact.”[4] W. Vincent Coon corresponded with Ed Goble about the beginnings of this geography. In part of an email exchange, Goble noted: “I always believed Cumorah was in New York, but couldn’t make the rest work in the early days.”[5]

The two different starting points unsurprisingly lead to different conclusions. By beginning with the declaration that the New York hill where Joseph Smith found the gold plates was the very Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the rest of the geography had to be imagined in ways that made that beginning focal point fit. As Goble mentioned, it wasn’t an easy fit.

Although there have eventually been maps printed that show how the Book of Mormon fits the Heartland, the recent maps differ substantially from the original in the Goble and May book.[6]

This unusual slanting of the map to create a Nephite North was undoubtedly inspired by a similar slanting of the Mesoamerican map in order to fit the north/south orientation of the internal models.[7] It does not appear in any of the subsequent Heartland models.

Beginning with a definition of the expected geography rather unsurprisingly leads to finding that very geography. As Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff note: “in research as in life one is far more likely to find what one looks for than what one neglects.”[8] The two very different beginnings to the search for a real-world location for the Book of Mormon make a comparison between the two extremely difficult. This difficulty stems not only from the geographical beginning points but also from the Heartland position that the geography the text describes is not as fundamentally important as a posited theological position on geography.

In their book proposing the Heartland location for the Book of Mormon, Bruce H. Porter and Rod L. Meldrum list the priorities they used to identify Book of Mormon lands:

The proposed methodology presented in this book utilized four highly corroborative resources that assist in coming to an understanding of the lands described in the Book of Mormon text. . . .

  1. Book of Mormon prophecies and promises testified of in relation to the Promised Land and the people associated with it.
  2. Inspired and revealed statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith on geography.
  3. Physical “real world” evidence, such as correlating civilizations in the correct time frame, archaeological findings as described within the text, cultural lifestyles, genetic relationships, and linguistic ties.
  4. Geographical indicators or passages contained within the Book of Mormon.[9]

There can be reasoned discussion of their points 3 and 4 because they relate to factors that are open to scholarly inquiry. The first two, however, are matters of faith. They may be important underpinnings of the Heartland model, but they are not available for scholarly comparison. They are personal, and one person’s faith in a model should not be argued against a different person’s faith in a different model. Thus, the blog posts in my 13-episode blog discussion will necessarily be limited in the type of evidence that can be examined.

Although one’s faith in how a model fits into Latter-day Saint theology and history cannot ultimately be challenged, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does have an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. The introduction to the Gospel Topics essays explains the vetting process:

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of ChurchofJesusChrist.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.[10]

Therefore, the statement on Book of Mormon geography may be seen as officially sanctioned by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apostles. It states:

The Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas. The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America.[11]

Note that they include Joseph Smith’s ideas about geography in that statement.

This series of blog posts will examine questions about the geography of the Book of Mormon based on evidence that can be determined from the text of the Book of Mormon and from qualified scholars (almost always degreed scholars) to create comparisons of how the Heartland and Mesoamerican models fit into a geography and then into a known historical context.



[1] John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985), 5, 6.
[2] John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events, A Sourcebook (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990), 95 and 118 for the Gunsolley and Layton models, respectively. For the 2018 Student Manuals: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual-2018/appendix-sites?lang=eng. For the Virtual Scriptures Conceptual Map: https://virtualscriptures.byu.edu/book-of-mormon-conceptual-map.
[3] The first is the version Jonathan Neville proposed, which is an undated version of the map from his book Moroni’s America (Jonathan Neville, Moroni’s America. The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Digital Legend, 2016): https://bookofmormonevidence.org/the-heartland-overview/. The second is attributed to W. Vicent Coon, taken from “Who Originated the Heartland Model,” https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Heartland%20Model.htm. The map is not present in Coon’s book, but the book provides more details on his model. See W. Vincent Coon, Choice Above All Other Lands, Book of Mormon: Covenant Lands According the Best Sources (Salt Lake City: Brit Publishing LLC, 2008).
[4] Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N. May, This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation (Colfax, Wisconsin, Ancient American Archaeology Foundation, 2002), 10.
[5] W. Vincent Coon, “Who Originated the Heartland Model?” https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Heartland%20Model.htm.
[6] Goble and May, 75.
[7] See Sorenson, 1985, p. 35-38. Sorenson himself did not use “Nephite North” as an explanation, but it has often been applied to the way Sorenson explained why his model did not follow the expected north/south orientation.
[8] Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff, The Modern Researcher (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985), 198-99.
[9] Bruce H. Porter and Rod L. Meldrum, Prophecies and Promises: The Book of Mormon and the United States of America (New York: Digital Legend, 2009), 1, 16. A slightly less detailed version of the four follows the first paragraph in page 1. I have added the set with greater detail form page 16.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This