I finished reading Mormon’s Codex and I thought I would write a little about it for anyone interested. It’s 714 pages of reading and it is essentially John L. Sorenson’s life’s work on Book of Mormon archaeology. Sorensen has been studying the issue for 60 years and argues that BOM events took place in southern Mexico and Guatemala. (This region is often referred to as Mesoamerica by archaeologists.)
I thought the book was terribly interesting. I studied archaeology in school and have always been fascinated by the topics of BOM archaeology and geography. I’ve never stopped reading about it.
I think Sorensen makes a somewhat convincing case for a Mesoamerican BOM setting. His approach is to identify what he calls correspondences, or similarities, between Mesoamerican archaeological studies and information in the BOM. An example would be that fortifications described in the BOM match up with excavated fortifications in Mesoamerica. Some correspondences are stronger (more specific) and some are weaker (more general). Sorenson argues that there are so many similarities, and that enough of them are specific in detail, that it’s “beyond question” that the BOM came from a Mesoamerican document. I think that’s a stretch, but he does make a better case than many others.
Mormon’s Codex Changed How I Read the BOM
Sorenson paints a picture of a very ethnically diverse BOM land. He points out clues in the text that indicate there were other, huge populations there which were virtually ignored by the BOM authors. Sorenson says the BOM authors were focused on the happenings and important players in relatively small kin groups. He points out that the text is very focused on explaining who has the right to rule and why. He says that BOM authors were not concerned about explaining their overall history. And that they didn’t make any attempt to give us a balanced picture of what was happening all throughout BOM lands. Sorenson says they wrote what was important to them--not to future anthropologists. I like this way of looking at the BOM. find that a lot of things that never made sense to me before about the BOM, do under this light.
According to Sorenson, there were probably indigenous populations subjected/incorporated by the Jaredites soon after their arrival. Same with the Lehites. Sorenson reasons that the newcomers, with a more developed Old World cultural knowledge of government, military and technology, would have quickly and easily taken control of the native groups. The Mulekites would have landed near the destroyed Jaredite civilization and mixed with/ruled over indigenous populations as well, many of which probably included Jaredite survivors who passed on elements of their own culture.
Sorenson uncovers clues in the BOM text that indicate a pre-existing indigenous people, as well as clues revealing the existence of a population of Jaredite survivors. If you’re not familiar with any of this, it’s all intriguing stuff and worth reading up on. One example of this is the Jaredite names like Morianton, Coriantumr, Korihor, Nehor and Shiblon, found among the Nephites.
I think it makes a lot of sense to think of the Lehite/Mulekite kingdoms as consisting of many different ethnicities, having different customs, and in some cases speaking different languages--even if they are all called “Nephites.” The text says this directly.
Sorenson also suggests that in some cases phrases which sound pretty harmless and uneventful to us, may not have been. For example when a military leader “takes possession of a city,” it may have been under threat of violence, and the city may have had to pay tribute.
These kinds of interpretations also help to explain many of the internal dissensions we read about in the BOM. If large segments of the Nephite population were actually indigenous groups of people, subject to foreign invaders, it makes sense why there would be so many rebellions. On top of that, there may have been royal descendents from the Nephites, Mulekites and Jaredites (and possibly others) all claiming a right to rule.
Some of the More Interesting Points:
The timeline of the Olmec culture does roughly overlap with the Jaredites. Then, in both cases, new civilizations rise from the ashes of the older. It’s a lot to get right by coincidence.
Stela 3 of the Olmec city of La Venta, which dates to around the arrival of the Mulekites, has been interpreted by prominent (non-LDS) archaeologists as two racially distinct leaders greeting each other. One of the leaders being bearded and described as Semitic in appearance.
Drawing of La Venta Stela 3
I think Sorenson’s biggest victory has been in challenging (and in my opinion, completely destroying) prevailing academic views about how the Americas were settled. Not that his work has been much acknowledged by mainstream archaeologists. But I think his views will ultimately prevail--the evidence is overwhelming. Sorenson focuses on plants and animals that occurred in both the New and Old Worlds before Columbus, that could not have spread without human transoceanic voyages.
I liked this quote from page 167:
Despite well-documented evidence of ancient capability for ocean travel, a negative attitude toward the possibility has persisted among scholars. That prejudice has been called both American “thalassophobia” (i.e., illogical aversion to considering a sea-travel option) and “intellectual mal de mer” (mental seasickness). This bias has kept virtually all New World archaeologists from even inquiring whether shipping might have spread ancient culture and people over long distances.
Sorenson takes some time to explain something about archaeology that most people don’t fully grasp. The archaeological record of civilization in general, is astonishingly incomplete and unreliable. In some cases, almost nothing is preserved. Fires, floods, wars, decay, later settlers, etc. can wipe out huge amounts of cultural remains. In additon to this, there is another problem. Because excavation costs money, only a small fraction of known sites can be studied. So many important, history-changing finds remain buried and unknown.
Of course, we would still expect to find a record of the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites. They were large civilizations. It’s just that the record we find may not be as abundant or as clear as many people would like.
Sorenson tells, by way of example, about a six mile long wall in the Valley of Mexico that was described by Spaniards when they arrived. It was 20 feet thick and nine feet high, yet no trace of it has ever been reported by archaeologists.
Giving another angle for us to consider, Sorenson quotes an archaeologist named Terry Stocker who explains that even though the Aztecs conquered 250 major centers, dominating perhaps 2500 communities, they only placed their own governors in eight conquered cities. His point is that without the written record, archaeological evidence for this widespread conquest spanning 200 years would be almost nonexistent. We would never know about it. Interesting to think about, and important to consider.
Some of the Weaker Areas:
Ever since studying Maya writing at BYU, I’ve always regarded the idea that the BOM took place in Mesoamerica as unlikely. We can read Maya writing pretty well now, and pronounce it correctly. We know dozens of names of rulers and cities recorded on Maya monuments. Yet none of these names matches up with BOM people or places. I think it’s a huge problem with placing the BOM lands there.
Sorenson does explain that people in Mesoamerica often fanatically destroyed records, books and stone monuments of their enemies and predecessors. They could be astonishingly thorough. Also, he points out that there are undeciphered scripts from Mesoamerica, some having only one or two surviving examples. So I guess there is still room for the possibility. But I think that with all the Maya writing we have coming from the BOM time period, the name of one king or city isn’t too much to ask. I was hoping Sorenson would address this more directly in the book.
Another problem with placing the BOM in Mesoamerica is that it doesn’t match up very well with BOM descriptions of the land of promise. North America, and specifically, the United States seems to fit the bill much better. The land of promise, where both the Nephites and Jaredites settled, is described as “choice above all other lands,” a future “land of liberty unto the Gentiles,” and as having no kings. I don’t think the book addresses this problem at all.
Since the prophecies about the promised land are conditional, I suppose you could argue that Mexico and Guatemala were the the land of promise but lost that blessing through wickedness. But why grasp at this idea when North America works so easily?
Sorenson spends a few pages showcasing evidence for metal use in Mesoamerica by 900 AD. Which is mildly interesting b/c that is earlier than is generally accepted. But it doesn’t help his case b/c the BOM doesn’t record anything later than 400 AD. Seems like a wasted effort.
Several correspondences that Sorenson comes up with are parallels between the Aztecs and BOM peoples. It’s interesting that both the Aztecs and the Nephites had judges and lawyers. But it’s a big jump to say that b/c the Aztecs in the Valley of Mexico had judges and lawyers in 1600 AD, the Maya in the highlands of Guatemala 100 BC must have also had judges and lawyers, thus making them a good candidate for being a people described in the BOM.
Sorenson tries to insist that the Aztecs and the Maya were rooted in the same culture and that the conservative nature of Aztec society preserved earlier customs. And he shows it did preserve some. But consider that Aztecs were not even in Mexico until 800 years after the BOM ends. I think the Aztec correspondences are incredibly weak as evidence.
It seemed like nearly every piece of information in the book got repeated two or three times. It became tedious and I don’t see a good reason for it. I could probably chop a couple hundred pages from the book and much improve it.
Other Noteworthy Items from the Book
Although not well known, or abundant, or widely recognized, there is nearly indisputable evidence of precolumbian horse remains at Maya sites. This is something BOM critics have been asking about for eons.
Sorenson suggests that ruins in Guatemala known as Sambaj, are the ruins of the Lamanite-constructed city Jerusalem. The site of Sambaj was apparently suddenly submerged in Lake Atitlan, around 2000 years ago. It sits under 55 feet of water, but will hopefully be excavated soon.
Hookworm has been found in a site in Brazil dating to 5200 BC. It originates in SE Asia and must have gotten to Brazil by boat. (In a land journey across the Bering Strait, cold temperatures would have killed the parasites b/c they spend part of their life cycle in the ground.) Which means people were traveling to the New World by boat 7200 years ago.
A marked difference in skin pigmentation is shown in various participants represented in an 11th-century-AD mural at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Dark-skinned warriors are shown dominating or abusing people with white skin. Ann Axtell Morris, the artist who copied the mural for the Carnegie Institution noted that in the original painting one class of painted figures had “natural, light-colored skins, [and] ...extraordinary yellow hair, very long and thick...It is difficult...to reconcile all of these physical qualities with a member of [the Maya] race…”
A Mural from Chichen Itza
The book also includes lots of photos of figurines and statues depicting foreign-looking people. Many have beards and other exotic features.
Sorenson also discusses DNA. He says that since we don’t know what the DNA of Jews at the time Lehi left looks like, we have no way to conclude much of anything. But I wonder, don’t they have Jewish tombs or cemeteries from that time period? Why don’t we know?
Sorenson tells us that not long ago archaeologists believed almost universally that warfare was practically nonexistent in ancient Mesoamerica. But they have since discovered that the ancient Maya were an incredibly violent, sadistic and warlike people. I actually remember some of my professors talking about this change. Sorenson’s point is that warfare is especially difficult to detect in the archaeological record, and that scientists are often dead wrong.
Mormon scheduled the battle with the king of Lamanites at the Hill Cumorah four years in advance. Which I had never realized before. Sorenson’s point here is that like Mormon, the Maya were known to schedule battles in advance. They often based the date on upcoming astronomical events. Which I think is crazy.
There’s a curious passage in Alma 24, where they say “Let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.” Sorenson claims this is further evidence the swords were wooden, since a metal sword would not be stained by blood. (The Aztecs used wooden swords called macuahuitl. Obsidian chips would have been set in a groove all the way around the blade of the wooden sword, making them quite deadly.)
Overall, I think Mormon’s Codex is a great read and it really got me thinking about angles of the BOM story. My favorite thing about the book was getting an analysis of the BOM through an anthropologist’s eyes. Sorensen is great at pulling information out of the abridged text. It entirely changed the way I read the BOM. The book also has lots of full color photos and maps to expound on the text. If you’re at all interested in BOM geography, I’d highly recommend this book.
