Where were Zarahemla and Bountiful located?

In a 2019 Gospel Topics essay, the Church stated unequivocally, “the Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.” This official statement reflects a long-standing recognition that, despite intense personal and academic interest, the precise locations referenced in the Book of Mormon—cities like Zarahemla or rivers like Sidon—have not been revealed by God to Church authorities or substantiated by irrefutable archaeological evidence.

The essay goes on to explain that all members are free to hold personal opinions about Book of Mormon geography, but these opinions should not be confused with the official doctrine or history of the Church. “Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken,” it asserts. This open acknowledgment allows for scholarly exploration, creative imagination, and faithful speculation, while drawing a clear line between private theories and the Church’s authoritative teachings.

The only canonical claim made by the Church is that “the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas,” and that the scriptural record is “a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas.” Furthermore, the introduction to the Church’s official 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon summarizes that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians,” but without specifying detailed locations or trajectories for these peoples.

If the Church does not specify precise sites, why has Book of Mormon geography been discussed so vigorously? Since the earliest days following the publication of the Book of Mormon, interest in situating its narratives within real-world landscapes has captivated Church members and leaders alike. As new archaeological discoveries in the Americas emerged throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, various Church leaders and writers developed competing geographic models.

For example, George Q. Cannon in the 1850s posited regions in what is now the western United States as possible settings for Book of Mormon events. Later, writer G. M. Ottinger, finding parallels between Maya traditions and the Book of Mormon, shifted his focus southward, contemplating that the ancient city of Zarahemla might align with the ruins of Palenque in southern Mexico or even Quirigua in Guatemala. The narrowing of options, such as the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the “narrow neck of land” mentioned in scripture, exemplifies how flexible—and at times, imaginative—these proposals have been.

In contrast, other models placed the key Book of Mormon geographies in northern South America, showing a substantial diversity of interpretations. Academic and apologetic works of the late 20th century, such as those by B. H. Roberts, Dan Vogel, and John L. Sorenson, have continually introduced, debated, and critiqued the geographical possibilities. Yet, crucially, even as members have propounded drastically different models, there has never been a revelation explicitly clarifying these locations. As the late 19th-century speculation demonstrates, “such things were not considered to have been settled by revelation.”

This ongoing conversation is not discouraged by the Church; instead, it is recognized as part of the broader intellectual engagement with scripture and history, so long as it remains clear what counts as revelation and what does not.

Why, despite generations of research and theory, have no official locations been identified? Several important factors help explain the Church’s position and the ongoing mystery.

Though the Book of Mormon is described by the Church as a “history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas,” it was written, abridged, and translated in a different context than modern academic histories or scientific treatises. The text uses broad geographical descriptors, but without detailed modern coordinates or familiar place names. As a result, matching scriptural descriptions with current topography or archaeological sites has proven inherently challenging.

Additionally, the ancient American civilizations referenced may not have left behind unambiguous traces that can be definitively linked to the Book of Mormon narrative. Archaeological evidence is often fragmentary or open to interpretation, and while various ruins and artifacts have fueled popular theories, none have been universally accepted as conclusive.

At its core, the Church regards the Book of Mormon as a work of scripture—one whose primary purpose is spiritual transformation, not geographic instruction. The 2019 Gospel Topics essay reinforces this perspective, emphasizing that the religious and salvific teachings of the Book of Mormon do not hinge on the identification of physical sites, but rather on the transformative power of its message. This theological focus encourages members not to conflate auxiliary interests with the book’s central message of Jesus Christ and redemption.

Significantly, the Church’s clarity in distinguishing between official doctrine and private opinion fosters a climate of continued exploration. Members and scholars are invited to study and propose theories, deepening their appreciation of both scripture and history. This openness enriches the faith’s intellectual tradition, while avoiding the trap of elevating speculative geography to the level of gospel truth.

Ultimately, the official position of The Church might best be described as modestly confident, rooted in faith and openness to discovery. The introduction to the current edition of the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians,” reflecting the faith’s orientation toward both spiritual and historical intersections. Yet, beyond the affirmation that the events occurred somewhere within the ancient Americas, no authoritative statements delineate North from South America, highlands from lowlands, or narrow necks of land from isthmuses.

This approach provides the Church with flexibility as discoveries in archaeology, anthropology, and even DNA research emerge. The official position avoids staking doctrinal claims on scientific or historical data that may evolve, ensuring that core beliefs remain secure regardless of academic shifts. As a result, the boundaries of faith and history remain in constructive dialogue, each respecting the other’s domain.