I believe the Book of Mormon is fiction because the narrow neck of land doesn’t exist.

There is a lot I like about the Book of Mormon. Many of its messages inspire me. I love the story of Abinadi. I love the message of King Benjamin. But despite all the things I like about the Book of Mormon, I don’t believe it’s a record of people that existed in the real world.

One of the key geographic features in the Book of Mormon is the narrow neck of land that separates the land northward from the land southward. Find the narrow neck, and you find the place where the Book of Mormon took place.

Growing up in the church, I’d been told that maybe the narrow neck of land was in the Great Lakes region of the United States. This seemed to match up the closest with what I learned about church history and what I read in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 8.56.15 AM

Or maybe it was Panama. One time, I was shown a video that explained why this was the case.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 8.56.41 AM

Or maybe it was the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico. This seemed to be the favored theory of Mormon academics.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 8.57.02 AM

Later in life, I learned that some people claim that the narrow neck is on the Baja Peninsula in Mexico.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 8.57.27 AM

Or the Isthmus of Rivas in Nicaragua.2

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 8.57.49 AM

When I first ran across the theory that the Book of Mormon took place in the Baja Peninsula, it was like a light bulb went off above my head. “Maybe,” I thought, “no one can find it because it doesn’t exist at all.”

All these theories can’t be right. There are only two options: (1) one of these theories is correct; or (2) all of them are wrong.

If one of these theories is correct, which one is it? Why is there so much uncertainty about it? Why do so many faithful members have such confident conclusions about places spanning the North American continent? Why couldn’t someone figure it out? Why couldn’t the prophet ask God where it was?

Growing up in the church, I was promised on a number of occasions that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon true. The more time passed and the more I studied, the less this seemed to be happening. Instead, the more I searched and pondered, the more the Book of Mormon appeared to be a 19th century work of fiction.

Over time, it appeared that option (2) was the only one that made sense. It made a lot more sense that all these theories were wrong and that the people looking for the narrow neck of land were looking for a fictional place that never existed.

Inspiring though it can be, if the Book of Mormon is fiction, that’s a fatal flaw for the church. How can the church be true if the Book of Mormon is fiction? It can’t be. The elusiveness of the narrow neck of land is one of the reasons I believe the Book of Mormon is fiction.


1 http://www.achoiceland.com/home

2 http://mormongeography.com

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “I believe the Book of Mormon is fiction because the narrow neck of land doesn’t exist.

  1. Just a thought here.
    The narrow neck of land is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon after the death of Christ. At that time the land was destroyed and reshaped. Land was sunk into the ocean, mountains were raised and valleys were formed.
    Isn’t it possible that none of the theories are right because the narrow neck that once existed doesn’t exist anymore? As such just because no one can find the exact locations doesn’t mean the book isn’t true.

  2. If there was any geologic evidence that such a dramatic changing of the face of the land took place during the timeframe…yes, it’s possible that the narrow neck ceased to exist and that’s why it can’t be located today.

    But there is no evidence that the land changed so dramatically at that time. If the land was really destroyed and reshaped in 33 A.D., geologic evidence would reflect this. There is none. Anywhere in the Americas, is there any evidence that ~2,000 years ago there was such a violent change of the landscape? If the Book of Mormon is real – as in, the events really happened and the people really existed in the real world, not myth or allegory – then the real world should have evidence of it, such as geologic evidence of a dramatic change in the land when Christ was crucified. But this evidence, to my knowledge, does not exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s