From the East to the West Sea

The contents of all BMAF publications are the sole responsibility of the individual authors and therefore do not necessarily represent the views of BMAF or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From the East to the West Sea

An Analysis of John L. Sorenson’s Book of Mormon Directional Statements

The article that follows was written in 2008, but it should have been written and published twenty-five years ago. Its tone is clearly reflective of the world of academia, so readers should not be offended at the abruptness of the rebuttal comments. As a professor emeritus at Brigham Young University, I highly respect Dr. John L. Sorenson as an academic colleague and as a friend. He is almost singularly responsible for opening the door and clearing the way for legitimate, serious study of Mesoamerica as the New World setting for the Book of Mormon. At the same time, a major premise of this article is that he has misread and misinterpreted some of the critical geography passages in the Book of Mormon. As a reader, do you agree with the seven errors¹ that are identified in connection with Dr. Sorenson’s methodology? If you haven’t yet visited Mesoamerica as the proposed land of the Book of Mormon, does this article give you added incentive to go there to experience such sites as the Book of Mormon’s hill Ramah/Cumorah, land of Desolation, narrow neck of land, narrow pass, land of Zarahemla, east wilderness, narrow strip of wilderness, land of Nephi, east sea, and land of Bountiful? If the seven errors that are identified are legitimate, what do you think Book of Mormon scholars should do as a result

Perhaps no verse of scripture in the Book of Mormon has caused more confusion than the words of Mormon in Alma 22:32:

And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

Perhaps the confusion associated with Alma 22:32 would be less if the verse had been punctuated as follows from the outset and if Orson Pratt had versified the verse as follows:

And now it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation from the east to the west sea.

And thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

Outgrowths of the confusion are reflected in six issues associated with the content of Alma 22:32 and other related verses dealing with Book of Mormon geography:

1. What is the distance across the narrow neck of land?

2. Should Alma 22:32 read as it appears in the Book of Mormon, or should it read “on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east [sea] to the west sea?”

3. For directional purposes, did the Nephites employ the cardinal directions, or did they employ their own directional system? What do “east” and “west” refer to in Alma 22?

4. Where are the east sea and east wilderness of the Book of Mormon?

5. Where is the narrow pass in relation to the narrow neck of land?

6. What is unique about the narrow strip of wilderness in connection with Alma 22?

John L. Sorenson astutely comments that any attempt to identify the New World setting for the Book of Mormon should be driven by relevant criteria. He says: “Our first task is to analyze from the text [the Book of Mormon] the key characteristics of the lands described. This will produce a set of requirements. Any area in the Americas proposed as the location of Book of Mormon events must match these criteria or else be judged mistaken.”²

What does the Book of Mormon contain that can be used as criteria in a test for determining the validity of any proposed New World geographic setting for the Book of Mormon? “From the text,” relevant, critical criteria that readers can easily deduce in identifying a valid setting for New World Book of Mormon geography are five in number:

1. The area must show evidence of a high-level written language that was in use during the dates given in the Book of Mormon.

2. The area must reflect two high civilizations that show extensive evidence of major population centers, continual shifts in population demographics, and almost constant warfare among the inhabitants—in harmony with the dates given in the Book of Mormon.

3. The archaeological dating of the proposed area must reflect thorough analyses of sites and artifacts with resulting radiocarbon dates that agree with the dates given in the Book of Mormon.

4. The historical evidence from the area must provide valid findings that dovetail with the customs and traditions associated with the peoples and dates of the Book of Mormon.³

5. The geographic configuration of the area must resemble an hourglass as a reflection of two land masses and a narrow neck of land (an isthmus) dividing the two. The hourglass must be on its side in a horizontal position to justify the Nephite cardinal directions of “northward” and “southward” for the two land masses.

This article’s purpose is not to explore those criteria as a basis for determining where in the New World the Book of Mormon took place. When the criteria are applied to all potential settings, Mesoamerica—and only Mesoamerica—meets the criteria. Thus, the New World geographic setting for the Book of Mormon is not an issue in this article.

In addition, the inherent nature of and the location of the narrow neck of land are not issues in the discussion that follows. For purposes of this article, the Book of Mormon’s narrow neck of land is an isthmus. Further, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica is the narrow neck of land of the Book of Mormon. Sorenson adamantly maintains that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the narrow neck of land,⁴ and he is 100 percent correct in that identification for three reasons:

1. As noted, when readers of the Book of Mormon use critical criteria associated with language, high civilizations, archaeological evidence, historical evidence, radiocarbon dating, and the geographic configuration of Book of Mormon lands in identifying the New World setting for the Book of Mormon, Mesoamerica turns out to be the only tenable New World setting for the Book of Mormon.

2. A careful reading of the Book of Mormon in an attempt to discern the general “shape” of the overall land of the Book of Mormon confirms that an hourglass image results from content about the land northward, narrow neck of land, and land southward. The mental image that comes from these three components is first, that of an hourglass, and second, that of the corresponding “shape” of Mesoamerica, although the hourglass image reflected in Mesoamerica is of an hourglass lying on its side—or in a horizontal rather than a vertical position—to justify the Nephite directions of “northward” and “southward.”

3. Under the assumption that Mesoamerica is, indeed, the New World setting for the Book of Mormon, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the only isthmus that matches the content of the Book of Mormon and that reflects findings from the archaeological and historical records of Mesoamerica.

Some Preliminary Comments

John Sorenson uses content from Alma 22 as his justification for stating that the Pacific Ocean at the base of the isthmus is the west sea and that the Gulf of Mexico at the top of the isthmus is the east sea. However, in interpreting Mormon’s geographic statements in Alma 22, Sorenson reads more into them than Mormon included or intended. For example, Sorenson seems to read Alma 22:32 as follows: It was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east [sea] to the west sea.” Further, Sorenson says the following about Alma 22:32:

“From the east to the west sea” seems to me probably the equivalent of “from the east sea to the west sea,” particularly when we pay attention to the end of the sentence: “thus the [greater] land of Nephi and the [greater] land of Zarahemla [together constituting the land southward] were nearly surrounded by water.” The day and a half’s “journey for a Nephite” then likely was effectively all the way across (although it would be silly to demand that it mean from salt-water to salt water; perhaps from garrison coastal settlement to a similar defense point on the other, which could be a number of miles from actual shore). However, without more information, such as explanation of “a journey for a Nephite,” we cannot specify the distance with confidence. [But logic allows us to bracket the distance. When we know on the one hand that Limhi’s exploring party passed through the isthmus without even realizing it (Mosiah 8:7–9; 21:25–26), we see that it was of substantial width. On the other hand, that the neck was relatively narrow was clear to knowledgeable Nephites.] A width as low as 50 miles seems too small; a more likely minimum is 75, while “a day and a half’s journey” could range up to 125 miles, depending on who traveled how (e.g., a messenger relay?)⁵

A key feature of this article is that Sorenson has not interpreted Alma 22:32 and numerous other Book of Mormon geography verses correctly. In reading verse 32, he makes two errors:

Error 1. From the verse, he attempts to determine the width across the narrow neck of land (corresponding with the distance across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) and then goes to great lengths in an attempt to “prove” that a Nephite can traverse what he labels as the 125-mile width in a day and a half. He says: “It was a day and a half’s travel for ‘a (presumably lone) Nephite’ across the narrow neck of land which they fortified: up to five miles per hour, that is, up to 180 miles, on the basis of rate alone. [but on the additional basis of use of the word ‘narrow,’ a figure approaching 180 miles is absurd; 100 seems not absurd.]”⁶ As reported above, he says, “The day and a half’s ‘journey for a Nephite’ then likely was effectively all the way across.”⁷ Thus, he mistakenly reads the verse as “it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east [sea] to the west sea.” In the process, he literally changes the words of Mormon to Sorenson’s words—an error of judgment and methodology.

Error 2. Because the Isthmus of Tehuantepec runs north and south and because Sorenson, in his mind, is now dealing with an isthmus that runs east and west (from the east [sea] to the west sea), he rotates the compass so he can label the Gulf of Mexico at the north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the east sea and the Pacific Ocean at the south of the isthmus as the west sea.⁸ The error here is his adoption of the “Nephite north,” which is really east and which results in an east-west narrow neck of land that cannot be placed over the north-south orientation of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

A significant portion of Sorenson’s geographic model for Mesoamerica and the New World setting for the Book of Mormon is impacted by these illogical decisions. Both interpretations are wrong; the content of Alma 22:32 does not support the outcome of either statement as a legitimate conclusion about the content meaning of Alma 22:32. In other words, Sorenson evidently has not read the Book of Mormon carefully and therefore has misinterpreted the content of the message in Alma 22:32. A discussion of the two errors Sorenson makes from misreading Alma 22:32 follows as major components of this article’s content.

As an extension of his thinking about Alma 22, Sorenson makes five additional errors:

Error 3. He legitimately realizes that the geographic shape of the overall land of the Book of Mormon is that of an hourglass because of the geographic outcomes associated with “land northward,” “land southward,” and “narrow neck of land” between the two. However, he works with that hourglass in a vertical position rather than in a horizontal position, which distorts Mormon’s map and which negates any reasonable possibility of overlaying his resulting hourglass map on a map of Mesoamerica. In the process, he makes the error of distorting the cardinal directions of the Nephites and fails to realize that the Nephites of the Book of Mormon used six cardinal directions rather than the usual four.

Error 4. He misconstrues the nature of and location of the narrow pass by identifying it as “an irregular sandstone and gravel formation as a ridge averaging a couple of miles wide and rising 150 to 200 feet above the surrounding country running west from the lower Coatzacoalcos River. . . . This formation runs from near Minatitlan, the modern city on the Coatzacoalcos, west about 20 miles to Acayucan.”⁹ The error he makes here is in his failure to recognize that guarding this location would not keep marauding forces coming from Lamanite lands in the land southward out of the land northward or out of the land of Zarahemla.

Error 5. He makes another error by failing to recognize the role and location of the defensive lines in Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7. That is, he does not recognize that these defensive lines must be located near the base of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec—rather than within or on the north side of the isthmus itself. Further, he does not recognize that these defensive lines must run from a point on the east and thence to the west until they terminate at the Pacific Ocean—as a reflection of the language of “from the east to the west sea” and “from the west sea, even unto the east” rather than from the language of “from the east [sea] to the west sea” and “from the west sea, even unto the east [sea].”

Error 6. Because he is confused about which direction was east to the Nephites, he makes another error by failing to deal correctly with the content in Alma 22:27 when Mormon says that the narrow strip of wilderness “ran from the sea east even to the sea west.” That is, the narrow strip of wilderness must indeed extend from sea to sea (from a sea on the east to a sea on the west) and not be a landlocked mountainous formation that does not touch any sea—his solution to the location of the narrow strip of wilderness.

Error 7. Because he misconstrues the real direction of east to the Nephites, he makes a compound error by misidentifying the locations of the east sea and the east wilderness. Thus, his east sea is the Gulf of Mexico, and his east wilderness is located near the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, he has to ignore the Book of Mormon time period archaeological sites near the seashore of Belize (a seashore that is indeed east of Tehuantepec). He also has to ignore the ubiquitous defensive earthworks of the lowland jungle area of Peten and Belize that match in intimate description the words of Mormon in Alma 49–50 and that date to the first century BC defensive earthworks built by Moroni. In return, he either illogically places the cities of Bountiful, Mulek, Gid, Omner, Jershon, Morianton, Lehi, Nephihah, and Moroni where Olmec/Jaredite cities are located near the Gulf of Mexico or creates archaeological sites that do not exist. He also fails to identify Moroni’s first century BC defensive earthworks in the east wilderness.

John Sorenson is very autocratic in his writing about Mesoamerica as the New World setting for the Book of Mormon—justifiably so for much of what he writes. A few other Book of Mormon scholars have occasionally challenged his work,¹⁰ but little has changed in his initial model as given in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.¹¹ In An Ancient American Setting, he says: “Hereafter I plan to assume that the geography question is settled, in broad terms. It is sensible to assume so in order to get on with other matters. I am personally assured that the Nephite map is now known with quite high probability. Furthermore, no other map correlation will do; all others known to me contain fatal flaws. On the contrary, the picture offered here is thoroughly plausible.”¹²

On a different occasion, Sorenson expresses his willingness to modify his approach: “We all should be willing to ‘be instructed more perfectly in theory’ (D&C 88:78). I am willing to change my theories and hypotheses, when the need is demonstrated.”¹³

Without question, this article approaches some of the major tenets of Sorenson’s Book of Mormon geography with an up-front assertion that he has misread Alma 22 in several instances and that his misreading has led him to commit seven errors associated with his map of Book of Mormon geography. This article will not deal with other errors, such as his exclusion from Book of Mormon geography of everything associated with the Yucatan and nearby territory. Obviously, this article is an attempt to document for Book of Mormon readers and scholars the errors in Sorenson’s thinking in connection with Alma 22 and related verses. Thereafter, readers and scholars are invited to wait and see whether a “demonstrated need” as an outgrowth of this article is sufficient to cause Sorenson to change his theories and hypotheses.

Frankly, because of Sorenson’s tunnel-vision approach to his map of the Book of Mormon, the study of Book of Mormon geography from the perspective of Mesoamerica has been in a state of limbo for about three decades—almost as if the only legitimate thinking about Book of Mormon geography is the “set-in-concrete version” of Sorenson. Will another three decades elapse before the obvious recommendations of this article are implemented? Will John Sorenson pass from this mortal existence without admitting the errors he has made in connection with Alma 22 and related verses? Will he have to be deceased before the outstanding scholars at the Brigham Young University Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (an umbrella organization under which the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS] now functions) feel they can publish Book of Mormon geography opinions that are different from Sorenson’s? Or will FARMS’s loyalty to Sorenson’s geography continue unabated simply because FARMS is the publisher of Sorenson’s manuscripts about Book of Mormon geography?

Though these might be viewed as harsh questions, they are realistic in light of the support given to Sorenson by FARMS since it was organized—including FARMS’s unwillingness to permit rebuttals to their reviews of Book of Mormon-related books or their refusal to publish articles that are critical of Sorenson’s work.

This article takes Sorenson’s philosophy to heart: “The Book of Mormon is the authority on the Book of Mormon. Our problem is to discover what it is saying to us.”¹⁴ What does the Book of Mormon itself say about Alma 22 and other related verses that deal with Mormon’s map?

An Analysis of “The Book of Mormon Mapped”

Chapter 1 of Sorenson’s groundbreaking book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, is titled “The Book of Mormon Mapped.” Sorenson later expanded the content of that chapter by writing a 128-page book, sans the notes, scripture index, and subject index, titled Mormon’s Map.¹⁵ In between these two books, he published The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book.¹⁶ The publisher of all three books is the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (now a component organization of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship).

An old American frontier saying is the following: “You can’t really understand an Indian until you’ve walked in his moccasins.” One version of that statement as it applies to chapter 1 of Sorenson’s book, An Ancient American Setting, is the following: “You can’t really understand how John Sorenson thinks about Book of Mormon geography until you’ve gotten into his head and analyzed his thinking process.” That process is a requirement if readers of the Book of Mormon are truly to understand “Mormon’s map” from Sorenson’s perspective. At issue here is whether the results of his chapter 1 can be called “Mormon’s map” or “Sorenson’s map.”

Sorenson makes the following statements in chapter 1 of An Ancient American Setting, “The Book of Mormon Mapped”:

We can . . . be certain that the Book of Mormon story took place in a limited portion of the western hemisphere shaped roughly like an hourglass.¹⁷

The only “narrow neck” [of the hourglass] potentially acceptable in terms of the Book of Mormon requirements is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico.¹⁸

The narrow neck of land is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.¹⁹

It is impossible to solve just part of the problem of locations and distances [in the Book of Mormon], for, as in a jigsaw puzzle, all the features [when placed on a map of Mesoamerica] must interlock.²⁰

Nowhere in his chapter 1 does Sorenson out and out say, “Mesoamerica is the New World setting for the Book of Mormon.” However, that is clearly his intention throughout An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. He does make a somewhat comparable statement in the “Epilogue” of An Ancient American Setting:

The Book of Mormon shows so many striking similarities to the Mesoamerican setting that it seems to me impossible for rational people willing to examine the data to maintain that the book is a mere romance or speculative history written in the third decade of the nineteenth century in New York State.²¹

Therefore, in the mind of Sorenson, readers of his books can assume that Mesoamerica is the New World setting for the Book of Mormon, that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the Book of Mormon’s narrow neck of land, and that Mesoamerica can be compared to an hourglass for mapping purposes. Further, he feels that all the components of his resulting hourglass map must relate correctly to geographic sites in Mesoamerica.

At this point in his mind, Sorenson makes an error—he creates his hourglass map by standing it in a vertical position rather than positioning it on its side in a horizontal position. The hourglass must lie on its side to match the hourglass image that is projected when readers of the Book of Mormon look at a map of Mesoamerica and attempt to correlate its geographic features with those contained in the Book of Mormon. That positioning also justifies the directions of “northward” and “southward” as used by the Nephites.

The result of this error on Sorenson’s part is the following: Whenever he writes a geographic statement involving compass directions, his mind is thinking “Mesoamerica”—but his writing reflects a vertical hourglass. The result is reflected in major distortions by Sorenson of the map that Mormon uses throughout his abridging work in the Book of Mormon.

For example, here is part of one of Sorenson’s paragraphs:

The size and shape of the land northward are also obscure. Beyond the neck it was wide enough that an upland western portion was distinguished from the lowland eastern portion. We cannot tell how far Moron, the Jaredite center in these highlands, was from the west coast, but since it was settled by the Jaredites soon after they landed, we can suppose that it was not very distant from the sea.²²

That paragraph is obviously written from the perspective of the vertical hourglass. “Beyond the neck” means north of the isthmus; “wide enough” means “from east to west”; “upland western portion” means “highland mountainous area on the west”; “lowland eastern portion” means “lowland area on the east”; and “how far Moron . . . was from the west coast” means “how far Moron was from the west sea.” Readers who accept the facts that Sorenson is talking about Mesoamerica, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the mountains of Oaxaca, and the lowland area of Veracruz must do the equivalent of transliterating Sorenson’s geographic pointers as they attempt to apply them to Mesoamerica.²³ That’s very difficult to do and typically requires a reader to read Sorenson’s sentences several times to make the correct connections. The reality is that most readers simply cannot do the necessary transliteration. They end up thinking something like, “That sounds very sophisticated. I’ll trust its truthfulness because I trust the reputation of Dr. John Sorenson.” Had Sorenson written the material in the quoted paragraph above from the perspective of the hourglass’s horizontal position rather than a vertical position, the result would be something like the following:

The size and shape of the land northward are also obscure. West of the neck it was deep enough that an upland southern portion was distinguished from the lowland northern portion. We cannot tell how far Moron, the Jaredite center in these highlands, was from the ocean to the south, but since it was settled by the Jaredites soon after they landed on the south, we can suppose that it was not very distant from the ocean.

The next step for the reader is to relate the content to the appropriate geographic area of Mesoamerica. After all, Sorenson adamantly believes that the New World setting for the Book of Mormon is in Mesoamerica. At that point, the material would read something like this:

The size and shape of the land northward are also obscure. The territory west of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec was extensive enough from south to north that the highland mountainous area of Oaxaca was distinguished from the lowland area of Veracruz. We cannot tell how far Moron, the Jaredite center in the mountainous highlands of Oaxaca, was from the Pacific Ocean to the south, but since it was settled by the Jaredites soon after they landed on the Pacific coast, we can suppose that it was not very distant from the ocean.

An outgrowth of this transliteration process is that Mormon’s map can be depicted as an hourglass, but that hourglass must be positioned horizontally rather than vertically—it if has any validity in representing Mesoamerica as the New World setting for the Book of Mormon. Sorenson’s error in failing to position the hourglass horizontally thereafter forces him into illogical, invalid geographic statements that (1) do not coincide with geographic content in the Book of Mormon because of directional distortions (2) force his readers into considerable consternation in attempting to relate his statements to Mesoamerica itself, and (3) violate his stated intention to explain the components of Mormon’s map in such a way that they will fit together like a jigsaw puzzle in which all the pieces interlock.

As noted previously, Sorenson’s failure to position the hourglass in a horizontal position is only one of several errors he makes. These errors invalidate a good deal of his wonderful, scholarly work associated with the Book of Mormon as it relates to Mesoamerica. That’s a tragedy of mammoth proportion if an understanding of Book of Mormon geography has any connection whatsoever with a testimony of the book’s being a true account about real people who lived somewhere. The reality is that the more readers know about Mesoamerican geography, the more they know about the Book of Mormon.

An examination of Sorenson’s map 3 on page 20 of An Ancient American Setting illustrates the following kinds of errors he makes by working with a vertical hourglass in depicting selected Book of Mormon geographic locations:

• Mesoamerica is oriented in a north-to-south direction rather than an orientation of west to east. (Obviously, Mesoamerica’s orientation is west to east rather than north to south.)

• The narrow neck of land (the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) extends from an ocean on the west to an ocean on the east. (Tehuantepec extends from the Pacific Ocean on the south to the Atlantic Ocean on the north.)

• The land of Moron, the land of Zarahemla, and the land of Nephi have a west coast. (The reality is that Mesoamerica itself technically does not have a west coast.)

• The river Sidon (the Grijalva River) flows into an Atlantic Ocean on the east. (A requirement of the Book of Mormon is that the river Sidon must flow north to the Atlantic Ocean.)

• The narrow strip of wilderness is positioned internally in the center of Mesoamerica territory. (The reality is that the narrow strip of wilderness must run from the east sea to the west sea and must reflect an actual Mesoamerica mountain range that indeed extends from a sea on the east to a sea on the west. The only mountain range in the entire New World that extends from a sea on the east to a sea on the west involves the Cuchumatanes and connected mountains that begin at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec [west sea/Pacific Ocean] and extend to the Guatemala/Belize coast [east sea/Caribbean Sea]).

• The land of Desolation is north of the land of Zarahemla. (“Northward” is used in the Book of Mormon to describe the direction of the land of Desolation from the land of Zarahemla.)

• The land of Zarahemla is north of the land of Nephi. (“Northward” more appropriately identifies the direction of the land of Zarahemla from the land of Nephi.)

Had Sorenson not positioned his hourglass in a vertical position and also misread some verses in Alma 22 to compound that error, all the above geographic blunders would never have occurred. The result would be a horizontal hourglass (picture an hourglass lying on its side on the table) with the geographic sites located in the correct places according to Mormon’s map and the map of Mesoamerica.

Following are additional illustrative instances from chapter 1, “The Book of Mormon Mapped,” that reflect the distortions in Sorenson’s thinking because he fails to work with Mormon’s map as a horizontal hourglass rather than a vertical hourglass and also because he misreads some of the verses in Alma 22. These distorted images are merely representative of the distorted geographic images throughout Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Mormon’s Map, and The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book. To get inside Sorenson’s mind (to “walk in his moccasins”), readers must do the all-but-impossible equivalent of transliterating his thinking by converting his words associated with a vertical hourglass to a map of Mesoamerica. You are invited to experience the immensity of the task by covering up the “Horizontal Hourglass” and “Mesoamerica Map” columns that follow and trying to create mentally the content in these two columns from Sorenson’s wording in the “Vertical Hourglass” column.

Vertical Hourglass	Horizontal Hourglass	Mesoamerica Map
The land southward had two main divisions: the land of Nephi in the far south, then to its north the land of Zarahemla, which stretched so far that it nearly reached the neck of land. (p. 6)	The land southward had two main divisions: the land of Nephi in the far east, then to its northward the land of Zarahemla, which stretched so far to the west that it nearly reached the neck of land.	The land southward had two main divisions: the land of Nephi in highland Guatemala, then northeast the land of Zarahemla in the central depression of Chiapas—stretching so far to the west that it nearly reached the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
Not far northward from Desolation was the Jaredites’ first major settlement area, the land of Moron. Northward from Desolation along the east coast lay a wet land. North of Moron and from Nephi south, the situation remains hazy. (p. 6)	Not far to the west of Desolation was the Jaredites’ first major settlement area, the land of Moron. West of Desolation along the sea on the north lay a wet land known as the waters of Ripliancum. West of Moron and from Nephi east, the situation remains hazy.	Not far to the west of the area at the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Desolation) was the Jaredites’ first major settlement area, the land of Moron in highland Oaxaca. West of Desolation along the Gulf of Mexico lay a wet land called the Hueyapan water basin (waters of Ripliancum). West of Oaxaca and from Guatemala east, the situation remains hazy.
The hill Ramah/Cumorah seems, then, to have been within 100 miles of the narrow neck of land, and this is consistent with the Nephites’ naming the southernmost portion of the land northward “Desolation,” which included the last battlefield. (p. 15)	The hill Ramah/Cumorah seems, then, to have been within 100 miles west of the top of the narrow neck of land, and this is consistent with the Nephites’ naming the northeastern portion of the land northward “Desolation,” which included the last battlefield.	The hill Ramah/Cumorah (Hill Vigia), then, was within a 100-mile distance west of the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and this is consistent with the Nephites’ naming the Veracruz area of the land northward “Desolation,” which included the last battlefield at Vigia.
[King Omer] ruled early in Jaredite history, when the immigrant population could have been only tiny. Withdrawing from Moron under threat from a rival, he traveled with his family “many days” to find refuge by the east sea. (p. 16)	[King Omer] ruled early in Jaredite history, when the immigrant population could have been only tiny. Withdrawing from Moron under threat from a rival, he traveled with his family “many days” to find refuge by the sea on the north.	[King Omer] ruled early in Jaredite history, when the immigrant population could have been only tiny. Withdrawing from Moron in the valley of Oaxaca under threat from a rival, he traveled with his family “many days” to find refuge by the Gulf of Mexico near the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

You are now invited to go through the same processes by mentally filling in the appropriate content in the “Horizontal Hourglass” and “Mesoamerica Map” columns in the table that follows. You can verify the appropriate content in the associated endnote.²⁴

On a preaching tour, Alma left Zarahemla, on the river Sidon, to preach in Melek on the west edge of the settled land (Alma 8:3–5). From there he turned northward, parallel to the west wilderness (Alma 22:27–28), to reach Ammonihah (Alma 8:6). This place, like Melek, was near the western periphery, as demonstrated by Alma 16:2 and 25:2. From Ammonihah, the prophet journeyed eastward toward a city called Aaron (Alma 8:13) without actually reaching it. Later Nephihah was said to be “joining the borders of Aaron and Moroni” (Alma 50:14); Nephihah was one of the defensive cities built in the east lowlands, and the city of Moroni was by the east sea (Alma 50:13; 62:32–34). (p. 21)

Mentally fill in the content for “Horizontal Hourglass.” Check the endnote for accuracy of content.

Mentally fille in the content for “Mesoamerica Map.” Check the endnote for accuracy of content.

Finally, now you are invited to fill in the content below as a reflection of one more geographic statement by Sorenson. In this instance, no solution is given in an endnote. If you have difficulty in mentally filling in the appropriate content for the “Horizontal Hourglass” column and the “Mesoamerica Map” column, you can rest assured that you are “in good company” because the task is almost an impossible one.

This information establishes that a string of cities stretched west to east across the land north of Zarahemla: Ammonihah, Aaron, Nephihah, Moroni. These four places ranging across most of the land southward might have taken up 150 miles, but that is about the limit. The distance coast to coast on this transect probably did not exceed 200 miles. (p. 21)

Mentally fill in the content for “Horizontal Hourglass.”

Mentally fill in the content for “Mesoamerica Map.”

Dozens of similar geographic statements are made throughout Sorenson’s writings in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Mormon’s Map, and The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book. The point here again is that lay readers simply do not have the expertise to transliterate Sorenson’s words into their own words that reflect accurate content for either a Book of Mormon horizontal-hourglass map or a map of Mesoamerica. Even so-called Book of Mormon scholars, if they are honest in explaining their methodologies for Book of Mormon geography, may not have the expertise and will not take the time to transliterate Sorenson’s geographic statements.

Frankly, in Latter-day Saint academic circles, Sorenson is viewed as the “guru” of Book of Mormon geography. In many respects, he deserves that distinction because of what he has done to further legitimate and intensive study of geography issues. But what do the above exercises suggest?

Answer: Sorenson expects his readers to understand everything he says about Book of Mormon geography when they are incapable of doing so. They simply cannot or will not assimilate his content about geography from the perspective of a vertical hourglass with findings from the archaeological and historical records of Mesoamerica. More specifically, they simply cannot overlay Sorenson’s vertical-hourglass map on a map of Mesoamerica because of the mass confusion in cardinal-direction misinformation. “That sounds good,” readers will say about many of Sorenson’s geographic statements. But behind the scenes, they haven’t the foggiest notion of what he has really said in most instances—such as those cited above—in correlation with today’s map of Mesoamerica.

As mentioned previously, Sorenson’s misinformation as reflected in his academic jargon is necessary because he misreads some geographically oriented verses in Alma 22 and elsewhere. In what respects?

As noted previously, Sorenson says: “‘From the east to the west sea’ seems to me probably the equivalent of ‘from the east sea to the west sea,’ particularly when we pay attention to the end of the sentence: ‘thus the [greater] land of Nephi and the [greater] land of Zarahemla [together constituting the land southward] were nearly surrounded by water.’ The day and a half’s ‘journey for a Nephite’ then likely was effectively all the way across.”²⁵

However, a careful reading of Alma 22:32 shows that “a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite” refers to a defensive line set up by the Nephites near the narrow neck of land rather than the distance across the narrow neck of land from the sea east to the sea west. In support of that conclusion, readers of the Book of Mormon need only read Helaman 4:7 where the defensive line changes to “a day’s journey for a Nephite”: “And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day’s journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country” (emphasis added). Again, this verse deals with a defensive line near the narrow neck of land rather than with the distance across the narrow neck of land. As with Alma 22:32, Helaman 4:7 does not say “from the west sea, even unto the east [sea]” but rather says “from the west sea, even unto the east.”

Daniel H. Ludlow confirms this thinking about Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7:

Some students of the Book of Mormon interpret [Alma 22:32] to mean that the entire narrow neck of land separating the land northward from the land southward could be traversed by a Nephite in a day and a half. However, a careful reading of this verse does not necessarily justify this conclusion. The historian’s statement concerning a line “from the east to the west sea” does not necessarily mean the same as though he had said that the line existed from the east sea to the west sea. The statement may mean that it was a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite from the east of the line to the west sea.

In Helaman 4:7 the author mentions this same area again: “And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day’s journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified.” Again, note that the word “sea” does not follow the word “east.” Also, a Nephite can now travel this distance in only one day’s journey, and it is quite clear the distance being covered is “the line which they had fortified” and not necessarily the distance between two seas.²⁶

In other words, “And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” has nothing to do with the narrow neck of land except the proximity of the resulting defensive line to the area of the narrow neck. The defensive line begins at some point east of the narrow neck and ends at the west sea. “On the line Bountiful and the land Desolation” has its beginning point at the east boundary of Desolation—probably closely associated with the current Mexico state boundaries of Oaxaca and Chiapas. Hence, “on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” means “from Desolation’s east boundary to the west sea.”²⁷

As pointed out previously, the confusion in Alma 22:32 is caused partly by the punctuation and the versification. If the punctuation were different and if Orson Pratt had split verse 32 into two verses, as he should have, the confusion would likely be lessened:

And now it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation from the east to the west sea.

And thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

That punctuation and that versification force readers to reach closure legitimately at the end of the first sentence and then open a new door in the mind for storage of information about the second sentence. Nothing is contained anywhere in the Book of Mormon that dictates how narrow or how wide the narrow neck of land must be. The best that can be deduced from the Book of Mormon itself is that the narrow neck of land is undoubtedly an isthmus. The issue then becomes one of finding a suitable narrow neck—in Mesoamerica. The only isthmus—and hence the only narrow neck of land—in geographical Mesoamerica is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

In misreading Alma 22:32, Sorenson laboriously tries to deal with his 125-mile distance across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to be traversed by “a Nephite” in a day and a half²⁸ (the distance by ancient trails or modern highways is closer to 160 miles). In the process, he goes through irrational reasoning in attempting to show that “a Nephite” must be a superhuman individual because he has to cover 125 miles in a day and a half.²⁹ The reality is that no person—even a “superman Nephite”—could cross the isthmus of Tehuantepec in a day and a half during Book of Mormon times. Because of the terrain, “a Nephite” would have required several days’ time for the crossing. A related issue here is why anyone—even “a Nephite”—would have wanted to cross the isthmus from sea to sea.

So what does “for a Nephite” mean? According to Allen and Allen, “‘For a Nephite,’ from our perspective, is simply Mormon’s way of saying that in the Nephite measuring system, a day-and-a-half’s travel time is equal to about twelve miles.”³⁰

How else would Mormon depict the lengths of the defensive lines in Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7? He is writing around AD 400 about incidents that occurred in the first century BC. Rather than say “for a Nephite,” should he have said “for a Lamanite”? Answer: Obviously not because the defensive line was that of the Nephites—not the Lamanites. Should he have said “for the Nephite army”? Answer: Obviously not because an entire army would be hard pressed to march the same “standard” distance in a day and a half that an individual would cover. In other words, “for a Nephite” has no special meaning other than to describe the defensive line of the Nephites and to reflect the Nephites’ measuring system as they understood it rather than to communicate the distance in some other measuring system such as miles, kilometers, or leagues. For example, Joseph Smith might have correctly transliterated this verse to read “It was only twelve miles on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation to the west sea” when he translated Mormon’s words—but he didn’t. By analyzing the verse carefully, readers can readily deduce that “a Nephite” has no special meaning beyond the measuring system employed by the Nephites.

The error committed here by Sorenson is in misreading Alma 22:32 and then trying to determine the distance across the narrow neck of land from the content of the Book of Mormon. That content simply does not exist. What a shame to spend so much time and attention on “the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation” without realizing that the phrasing merely describes one period-of-time defensive line rather than the distance across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Finally, that defensive line must be located near the base (south end) of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec because the line clearly involves the west sea (the Pacific Ocean). From the perspective of Alma 22 and the Lamanite king living in the land of Nephi (valley of Guatemala City) whom Mormon is talking about, the “west sea” is indeed west and is that portion of the west sea in close proximity to the narrow neck of land. In other words, the west sea is the Pacific Ocean based on the content in verses 27 and 32.

The Location and Nature of the Narrow Pass

A narrow pass is an essential component of any New World isthmus being considered as the “small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). The term “narrow pass” is used only three times in the Book of Mormon:

1. “There [the borders of the land Desolation] they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east” (Alma 50:34; emphasis added).

2. “And he [Moroni] also sent orders unto him [Teancum] that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side” (Alma 52:9; emphasis added).

3. “I [Mormon] did cause my people that they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Mormon 3:5; emphasis added).

The term “narrow passage” is used only once in the Book of Mormon: “And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward” (Mormon 2:29; emphasis added).

As can be seen, if a traveler was in the land northward, the narrow pass led into the land southward. Conversely, if a traveler was in the land southward, the narrow pass led into the land northward.

The terms narrow pass/narrow passage and the term narrow neck of land are not synonymous terms. Seemingly, readers can easily discern that the narrow pass was located in the narrow neck of land.

However, Sorenson does not position the narrow pass in this fashion. In a lengthy description of his understanding of the narrow pass, he says the following:

Another geographical question that keeps coming up as one reads the Book of Mormon is the nature and location of the “narrow passage” referred to in Alma 50:34 and 52:9 and Mormon 2:29 and 3:5. It’s apparent from these verses that the pass is not the same as the narrow neck itself. Rather, it is some kind of specific feature within that neck area. Alma 50 tells how Teancum intercepted Morianton’s fleeing group just as they both arrived at a very specific point, “the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.” It is also clear that parties passed near the city Bountiful to gain access to this pass from the eastern seashore area (Alma 51:28–30; 52:9, 27; 53:3–4). Yet the city Bountiful goes unmentioned when the pass is approached from the direction of the west sea, as shown in Mormon 2:3–6, 16–17, and 29 to 4:23. (Perhaps the city was no longer inhabited by the fourth century AD.)

A solution is found by looking at fine-grained geographical details of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec area. An irregular sandstone and gravel formation appears as a ridge averaging a couple of miles wide and rising 150 to 200 feet above the surrounding country running west from the lower Coatzacoalcos River. It provides the only reliable year-round route from the isthmian/east coast area “northward” into central Veracruz. A great deal of the land on either side of this ridge is flooded periodically, as much as 12 feet deep in the rainy season. At times during that season the ridge pass would indeed lead “by the sea, on the west and on the east” (Alma 50:34), for the water in the flooded basins would be on both sides of the ridge and would have barred travel as effectively as the sea, with which the floodwaters were continuous. Even in the dry season, the lower terrain is choked with thorny brush, laced with lagoons, and rendered impractical as a customary route. This formation runs from near Minatitlan, the modern city on the Coatzacoalcos, west about 20 miles to Acayucan. From there the normal route leads farther west to the river crossing at San Juan, a key junction. The modern highway runs partly along this elevation to escape the boggy conditions on either side. Where it does so, it essentially follows the pre-European way that had been in use as the road of preference for thousands of years. . . .

At the east end, the ridge begins at Paso Nuevo, the major ford over the Coatzacoalcos just below Minatitlan. East of the ford the standard route leads across the plains and low hills into Tabasco. If, like Morianton (Alma 50:33–34), one came from the Tabascan plain, the ford and the ridge route would be viewed as the gateway to the land northward. Teancum’s intercepting army barred the gate, probably right by the river crossing. And the city Bountiful, which must be nearby, should lie near the east (southward) bank of the river somewhere in the ten-mile stretch between the ford and the coast (compare Alma 50:32, 34; 51:28–30; 53:3–4; 3 Nephi 11:1; 19:10–12).³¹

In speaking of the narrow pass, Sorenson, in another source, says: “The pass led to the land northward. Control of the pass was required to get into the land northward (at least that part of interest to the Nephites then).”³² By “then,” Sorenson is referring to Alma 52:9, which dates to the first century BC.

Sorenson is confused. At this point in time (the first century BC), as reflected in Alma 50:34, the Nephites are not on the north side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Rather, they are on the south side, near the borders of the land Desolation. “By the sea, on the west and on the east” means they were at the west sea (Pacific Ocean/Gulf of Tehuantepec) on both the west side and east side of the narrow pass that led into the narrow neck of land.

Today’s travelers who visit this part of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec understand what Mormon is saying. In fact, only through this intimate experience can a Book of Mormon reader truly appreciate the full impact of the narrow pass as a major geographic landmark that cries out, “What you’re reading in the book is true. Here’s some tangible evidence to support the existence of a narrow neck of land that divided the land southward from the land northward.” When going through the southern part of the narrow neck of Tehuantepec and thereby experiencing the narrow pass, travelers can almost “reach out” on both the east side and the west side and touch the massive mountains that rise up as impenetrable barriers to movement and that constitute the heart of the narrow pass through the narrow neck of land.

Therefore, in identifying the narrow pass as his “gravelly ridge leading through barrier swamps”³³ at the top (north end) of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (narrow neck of land), he commits an error and misses the point entirely of the purpose of the narrow pass. That is, from some strategic point that was relatively close to the south end of the narrow neck of land, the Nephites protected the narrow pass to keep the Lamanites from getting into the land northward or into the land of Zarahemla. At the location of Sorenson’s “gravelly ridge,” the Lamanites would already be in the land Desolation/land northward. Protecting the gravelly ridge would be an exercise in futility because this gravelly ridge was not the narrow pass through the narrow neck of land. Travelers went through the narrow pass both in traveling to the land northward or in traveling to the land southward. Sorenson’s gravelly ridge deals exclusively with travel from east to west across the narrow neck of land at the top of the narrow neck—not through the narrow neck in north-to-south or south-to-north directions.

Thus, protecting Sorenson’s narrow pass would neither keep the Lamanites from traveling along the coast of the west sea (Pacific Ocean) to enter the narrow pass and thence the land northward nor keep them from traveling along the coast of the west sea to a point where they could cross over the mountains and thence invade the land of Zarahemla.

“From the East to the West Sea” or “From the East [Sea] to the West Sea”?

Sorenson makes another error when he misreads “on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” as “on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east [sea] to the west sea.” Or, in his words, as noted previously, “‘From the east to the west sea’ seems to me probably the equivalent of ‘from the east sea to the west sea.’” The outcome of this error is that Sorenson thinks the narrow neck of land extends from the east sea to the west sea. That is not what Alma 22:32 says. The wording is merely “from the east to the west sea.”

An indication of the natural proclivity to misinterpret Mormon’s wording here is reflected in the Spanish edition of the Book of Mormon. The translator worded the “east to the west sea” aspect of Alma 22:32 as “desde el mar del este al del oeste” (“from the sea of the east to that of the west”³⁴). In other words, this verse is clearly mistranslated in the Spanish edition of the Book of Mormon because the translator mistakenly saw this distance as extending from sea to sea. In a similar fashion, some Book of Mormon scholars, such as Sorenson, incorrectly read or interpret the language in this verse much like the translator of the Spanish edition of the Book of Mormon did.³⁵ Mormon does not say “from the east sea to the west sea” but merely says “on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea.” Helaman 4:7 in the Spanish translation (desde el mar del oeste hasta el este), on the other hand, is correctly translated as “from the sea of the west to the east.”³⁶

This aspect of Alma 22:32 deals with a defensive line “from the east to the west sea” rather than with the distance across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec from the east sea to the west sea. Again, Mormon says nothing about the distance across the narrow neck of land. Further, nowhere else in the Book of Mormon can readers find anything about the distance across the narrow neck of land. Mormon does say something about the length of the defensive lines on two different occasions—a day and a half’s journey in Alma 22:32 and a day’s journey in Helaman 4:7.

Those defensive lines must be outside the narrow neck of land but also must be in the vicinity of the south side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (narrow neck of land) and must relate directly with the Pacific Ocean (west sea).

Joseph L. Allen and Blake J. Allen have personally explored an area near the south side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec that may have implications for the location of the defensive lines of Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7. They report their discovery as follows in the second edition of their book, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon:

Since the initial publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, many of its readers have routinely wanted a Nephite to cross from ocean to ocean in a day and a half. This verse does not say that. It does not say from the east sea to the west sea. It says “from the east to the west sea.” It simply states that the east orientation is the dividing line between Bountiful and Desolation. The west orientation is the west sea, which we believe is the Pacific Ocean by the Gulf of Tehuantepec. According to our model, the day-and-a-half marker begins near the archaeological site of Tonala (candidate for the city of Melek) on the east and ends at the ocean fishing village of Paredon on the west. The distance is twelve miles, which is consistent with Maya travel distance of eight miles a day—or twelve miles in a day and a half.

Also of interest is the name of the village located on the ocean’s front (west sea). It is Paredon. Pared is a Spanish word that means “wall,” and Paredon means a “big wall.” The local people tell of an ancient wall that was built beginning at the ocean, by the cemetery, and that extended directly east toward the mountain twelve miles away. This historical fact is very important because to this very day, an immigration checkpoint is located in the same area near Tonala. This is a crucial landmark because the high, rugged mountains on the east and the Gulf of Tehuantepec on the west provide a natural defensive area to inhibit or prohibit people from entering into the central depression of Chiapas or to travel through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec into areas of Mexico that are west (and “northward”) of the isthmus.

Whether guards were posted or whether a wall was built along the defensive line, the results would be the same. The motive was to keep the Lamanites from traveling into the land of Zarahemla or into the land northward.³⁷

The error here on Sorenson’s part comes because he does not read Alma 22:32 carefully and then analyze its content correctly in relation to other Book of Mormon geographic statements. Frankly, such errors simply cannot be tolerated on the part of those who are truly respected as the elite of Book of Mormon scholars—a role that Sorenson unequivocally holds in the academic environment of Brigham Young University.

Rotation of the Compass to Justify Sorenson’s “East Sea”

The next error Sorenson makes is associated with his rotation of the compass to justify his designation of the Gulf of Mexico, which is north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, as the east sea of the Book of Mormon.

The confusion arises initially because Sorenson works exclusively with his hourglass map that is always reflected in a vertical position. In this vertical position, because north is routinely expressed at the top of his vertical hourglass, as shown in all instances by Sorenson’s north directional arrow, the resulting narrow neck of land (isthmus) runs in an east to west direction. Had Sorenson merely positioned his hourglass map in a horizontal position to match the horizontal hourglass configuration of Mesoamerica and to justify the Nephites’ use of “northward” and “southward” as cardinal directions, he probably would have avoided this error.

David A. Palmer was a contemporary and colleague of Sorenson in the 1970s and 1980s. Both of them authored books about Book of Mormon geography. Palmer’s book is entitled In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico.³⁸ Although Palmer’s book was “officially” published before Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Sorenson’s manuscript was used extensively as a photocopied version in looseleaf binding for several years prior to its publication by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.

The point of this discussion is to ask the following question: Who made the initial decision to rotate the compass to justify labeling the Gulf of Mexico as the Book of Mormon’s east sea—John Sorenson or David Palmer? An answer to that question is not critical to this discussion. Both Sorenson and Palmer espoused a rotation of the compass in their writings, and each supported the other in this configuration.

Sorenson refers to his rotation of the compass as simply that—a rotation. Palmer refers to his rotation of the compass by coining a new “cardinal direction”: Nephite north. Sorenson denies that the results of his rotation of the compass can legitimately be labeled “Nephite north” when he says, “The concept of ‘Nephite north’ is not mine, consequently it is not appropriate on a map representing my views.”³⁹ Palmer provides several maps with “true north” and “Nephite north” clearly labeled; the degree of rotation on these maps to accommodate the new direction of “Nephite north” is apparently seventy degrees northwest of north.⁴⁰

In speaking of the Nephite north, Palmer makes two noteworthy statements:

An obvious problem with identification of Tehuantepec as the “narrow neck of land” is that it runs north-south, not east-west as would be expected if it were to separate the land “northward” from the land “southward.” However, this is only one part of the larger problem of Book of Mormon geography. If one assumes that the Book of Mormon “north” is actually true north, one has the same problem as Hammond (1959), who placed his map of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica generally but was unable to develop a specific correlation with present topography of the area. The solution, which is now agreed upon by many serious students of this subject, is that the Book of Mormon north was west-north-west in our coordinate system. This is the reason for the orientation of some of the maps presented in this book which have west-north-west at the top.⁴¹

There are indications that in making the abridgment of Ether’s Jaredite history, Moroni used his own geographical definitions and directions. Therefore, throughout this book we will attempt to consistently give directions in the Nephite coordinate system when speaking of Nephite or Jaredite events. In other words, if we say that Alma went north, the reader can translate that to west-north-west in modern terms. When not speaking of the Book of Mormon text, conventional directions will be used.⁴²

Thus, readers of Palmer’s classic book must transliterate his directional pointers based on his Nephite north if they are truly to understand directions in connection with a map of Mesoamerica.

Knowledgeable individuals who read Sorenson’s writings have a natural tendency to use the term “Nephite north” in referring to Sorenson’s rotated compass. For example:

Sorenson’s “limited Tehuantepec theory” (a view that places the Book of Mormon lands in southern Mexico) has its own set of flaws. Alma 22:27 in the Book of Mormon mentions a “narrow strip of wilderness” that divided a sea to the east and a sea to the west. The problem is southern Mexico has no such shoreline. Instead, the water masses in this area really lie north and south. Undaunted, Sorenson merely turns his map sideways and declares that the Nephites used a different method for determining directions. In this case a “Nephite north” is employed. Thus, what appears to be a “sea north” becomes the sea east and the southern water mass becomes “sea west.”⁴³

The point of this discussion is that the error associated with the rotated compass that resulted in the “Nephite north” need not have occurred. When Mormon uses the term “east sea,” readers of his writing should naturally and legitimately expect that sea to be east of “something”—not north of “something.” That “something,” from the perspective of Alma 22, is the narrow neck of land—the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Had Sorenson and Palmer worked exclusively with a “horizontal hourglass” rather than a “vertical hourglass,” they probably would not have felt the need to rotate the compass.

The Nephite Meaning of “East” and “West”

According to Sorenson, “Directions and how they are referred to are cultural products, not givens in nature. Both the conceptual frameworks which define directions and the languages of reference for them differ dramatically from culture to culture and throughout history.”⁴⁴ Moreover, “The labeling of directions is not obvious nor intuitive but really highly cultural, that is, arbitrary and that ultimately we can only determine empirically what the ancients meant by their direction terms.”⁴⁵

Sorenson goes to great lengths as he addresses the issue of inconsistency in directional systems among cultures throughout the history of the world, including in Mesoamerica.⁴⁶ With a noticeable amount of frustration, he deals with one critic⁴⁷ of his interpretation of the Nephite directional system by summing up his thinking about the diversity of directional systems among cultures as follows:

The topic of directions still seems mysterious . . . to . . . critics and general readers of my work. I have tried several times to make the matter clear, but perhaps one more try here will make the crucial points unmistakable. Six ideas are worth noting.

1. All systems for labelling directions are arbitrary and spring from the unique historical, geographical and linguistic backgrounds of specific peoples. . . .

2. More than one system of direction labels is commonly used in a single culture. . . .

3. Various other criteria (e.g., the rising or setting of certain stars, seeing particular landmarks, or the prevailing wind) may take precedence over the sun.

4. When a people move from one location to another, their system of directions is quite sure to undergo change.

5. What exactly were the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the directional terminology (or terminologies) used by Lehi’s family in the land of Judah? . . .

6. The Book of Mormon refers to directions at many points, but no attempt at an explanation of their mental model, however brief, is ever given.⁴⁸

Sorenson resorts to such language because he has been challenged on several occasions about his interpretation of the Nephites’ directional system. He maintains that Mesoamerican peoples did not adhere to the cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west as North Americans and South Americans employ them today. By extension, then, in his mind, the Nephites did not employ the cardinal directions with the result that Book of Mormon readers must interpret what Mormon’s true meanings are when he uses such geographic terms as east sea and east wilderness. Sorenson’s vociferous defense of his research and his almost militaristic approach to issues associated with the Nephites’ directional system suggest several questions, such as the following, that beg for answers:

1. How should readers interpret directional statements throughout the Book of Mormon?

2. Did the Nephites employ the cardinal directions as today’s readers understand them?

3. Are the directional statements in the Book of Mormon strictly an invention of Mormon, or were they employed by all Book of Mormon cultures?

4. How can Book of Mormon readers determine what Mormon truly means when he uses directional pointers throughout his abridgment?

5. Did Mesoamerican peoples, such as the Maya, employ the cardinal directions throughout their histories?

If Sorenson’s extensive research about directional systems among Mesoamerican peoples is accurate, Mesoamerican peoples probably did not use the four cardinal directions as interpreted today. Well, perhaps some of them did at some points in time—depending on the Mesoamerican scholar or source being consulted. So did the Maya employ the cardinal directions throughout the various time periods of their culture—especially during Book of Mormon time periods? A logical answer at this point, based on Sorenson’s research, could be the following: Who knows? An extension of that answer is the additional response: Who cares?

If those responses seem to be flippant in nature, they’re intended to be. For purposes of this article, the important thing to attempt to discern is the nature of the directional system employed by the Nephites. In this one instance, therefore, something can be gained from separating the data from the Mesoamerica historical record from the information contained in the Book of Mormon. Or, as Sorenson puts it, “The Book of Mormon is the authority on the Book of Mormon. Our problem is to discover what it is saying to us.”⁴⁹

What does the Book of Mormon say about its directional system? Obviously, Mormon does not come out and say, “We use the same directional system as the Gentiles of the latter days who will read this record use.” Just as obviously, the Book of Mormon reflects some kind of directional system that readers of today are expected to understand as they attempt to understand the content of the Book of Mormon. What is the nature of that directional system? How should readers of today interpret the numerous Book of Mormon directional pointers associated with north, south, east, and west?

An examination of Mormon’s “geography epistle” in Alma 22:27–34 helps answer those questions. Mormon not only gives an extensive geography orientation but also provides the key to the Nephites’ directional system—if (1) Mesoamerica is the New World setting for the Book of Mormon and (2) the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the narrow neck of land of the Book of Mormon.

Most knowledgeable Book of Mormon scholars of the twenty-first century respond adamantly and positively to both conditions. Yes, Mesoamerica unequivocally is the New World setting for the Book of Mormon. And yes, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec unequivocally is the narrow neck of land. With those two stipulations resolved, the place Book of Mormon readers should begin in determining the nature of the Nephites’ directional system is Alma 22.

Mormon undoubtedly included the Alma 22 geography content so readers of the last days could relate correctly to the content of his abridgment. He wrote as if he had a map in front of him and as if he expected readers to have the same map in front of them as they read his words. Associated with the numerous geographic pointers he gives his readers throughout his abridgment, he also gives them numerous compass pointers. That statement does not mean that the Nephites had compasses or used them in their directional system. An analysis of Alma 22 shows the following:

1. The directional system of the Nephites has six Nephite cardinal directions: north, northward, south, southward, east, and west.

2. “Northward” reflects the general direction of northwest rather than northeast. “Northward” could be either a northwest or a northeast direction by its very nature, but northwest is the correct orientation from an Isthmus of Tehuantepec perspective. Or, as Noah Webster in his 1828 dictionary says about “northward” as an adjective, as in land northward: “Being towards the north, or nearer to the north than to the east and west points.”⁵⁰

3. “Southward” reflects the general direction of southeast rather than southwest. “Southward” could be either a southeast or a southwest direction by its very nature, but southeast is the correct orientation from an Isthmus of Tehuantepec perspective. Interestingly, Noah Webster does not show an adjectival definition for “southward” in his 1828 dictionary.

4. North, south, east, and west are the directions that readers of the twenty-first century are accustomed to based on compass bearings. When these cardinal directions are viewed from the perspective of a horizontally positioned hourglass that is placed over a map of Mesoamerica, they coincide with the same four cardinal directions employed by Book of Mormon readers of the twenty-first century.

5. The six Nephite cardinal directions in Alma 22 and throughout the Book of Mormon are consistently reflected in Joseph Smith’s translation of the record. In one respect, whether they are what they are today in the Book of Mormon (north, northward, south, southward, east, and west) by virtue of a literal translation by Joseph Smith or by a transliteration process that happened in the process of translation is immaterial. On the other hand, readers can, in general, “feel” the directions involved when reading verses that reflect the Nephite cardinal-direction pointers. For example, the direction of “northward” could vary by several degrees—depending on the specific real estate where the Book of Mormon writer was standing at the time he used the term. In a similar vein, “east” can be interpreted as “in the vicinity” of ninety degrees to the right of north—and so forth. In those respects, the Nephite cardinal directions are at least “close kissing cousins” to the cardinal directions of the twenty-first century if not identical to them. However, “northward” and “southward” are unique because of their orientation at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

What does the Isthmus of Tehuantepec have to do with the above discussion? The answer is associated directly with the Nephite cardinal directions of northward and southward.

Picture Mormon standing anchored near the center point of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (near the middle of the narrow neck of land) and facing toward the top of the isthmus—just as he probably expected travelers and readers of today to do. Without question, the isthmus is the dividing line between the land northward and the land southward. To Mormon, facing toward the top of the isthmus, a key cardinal direction is northward—because it is the direction where people lived and a primary direction people were walking after they passed the middle of the isthmus. At this point, readers can overlay Mormon’s map onto a map of Mesoamerica as reflected in Alma 22. The results:

• Where is northward? Answer: To the left front of Mormon (northwesterly from him in relation to the north-south isthmus) = land northward/land of Desolation, hill Ramah/Cumorah, waters of Ripliancum, Jaredite lands

• Where is north? Answer: A short distance to the right of northward and then “sort of” straight ahead = an “opening up” or widening of the narrow pass, land of Desolation, hill Shim, Gulf of Mexico (Atlantic Ocean)

• Where is east? Answer: A ninety-degree right face by Mormon and then “sort of” straight ahead = land among many waters, east wilderness, east sea, land of Bountiful

• Where is southward? Answer: To the right rear of Mormon (southeasterly from him in relation to the north-south isthmus) = land of Zarahemla, land of Manti, head of Sidon, narrow strip of wilderness, land of Nephi

• Where is south? Answer: A one hundred eighty-degree about face by Mormon and then “sort of” straight ahead = the narrow pass from that point to the base of the isthmus, Gulf of Tehuantepec (Pacific Ocean)—or west sea from the perspective of the sons of Mosiah who were doing missionary work in the Alma 22 land of Nephi

• Where is west? Answer: A ninety-degree left face by Mormon and then “sort of” straight ahead = land of Moron, land northward/land of Desolation, land which was northward, Jaredite lands

From the perspective of the Mesoamerica historical record and the Book of Mormon record as reflected in Alma 22, the following statements and scenarios apply when Mormon’s horizontal hourglass map is laid over a map of Mesoamerica:

1. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec/narrow neck of land ran in a north-south direction and divided the land northward from the land southward (v. 32: “there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward”).

2. The narrow pass was on the south end of the narrow neck of land—not on the north end (v. 33: “thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward”).

3. The defensive lines associated with the narrow neck of land and narrow pass were on the south side of the isthmus at a logical point along the Pacific Ocean (v. 32: “on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” and “from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day’s journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified” in Helaman 4:7).

4. About sixty miles north into the isthmus, travelers could exit the isthmus itself and travel in the land of Desolation (including ancient Olmec territory where the Jaredite civilization was destroyed). At that point in the isthmus, the traveler could go left (westerly), northward (northwesterly), and straight ahead (northerly) (v. 30: “it [land of Bountiful] bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it [Desolation] being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed”).

5. At times, “land northward” and “land of Desolation” are overlapping terms, which means that the land of Desolation was part of the land northward (v. 30: “Desolation . . . [was] so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed”; “the land on the northward was called Desolation” [Alma 22:31]).

6. To get to the land northward from the territory of the west sea (Pacific Ocean), travelers had to enter the narrow neck of land at the bottom of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, walk north through the narrow pass, and reach a point where they could veer left (westerly) or continue walking in the general direction of straight ahead (northerly) or veer right (easterly).

7. To get to the land northward from the land of Zarahemla, travelers had to cross a mountain range southwest of them, walk along the Pacific coast past the location of the defensive line that ran from the east to the west sea, enter the narrow neck of land at the bottom of the isthmus (not far from the west sea), walk north through the narrow pass, and reach a point where they could veer left (westerly), continue walking straight ahead (northerly), or veer right (easterly).

8. To get to the land northward from the land of Nephi, travelers had two choices. First, they could walk along the tops of the mountains, following much of the present route of the Pan-American Highway, and eventually reach the Pacific coast (west sea), walk past the location of the defensive line that ran from the east to the west sea, enter the narrow neck of land at the bottom of the isthmus (not far from the west sea), walk north through the narrow pass, and reach a point where they could veer left (westerly), continue walking straight ahead (northerly), or veer right (easterly). Second, they could leave the mountainous area of the valley of Guatemala, walk down in the reverse directions that Nephi and his followers used in getting from the land of their fathers’ first inheritance on the Pacific coast to the land of Nephi, reach the Pacific coast, walk along the Pacific coast (west sea), walk past the location of the defensive line that ran from the east to the west sea, enter the narrow neck of land at the bottom of the isthmus (not far from the west sea), walk north through the narrow pass, and reach a point where they could veer left (easterly), continue walking straight ahead (northerly), or veer right (easterly).

9. To go easterly from the top of the isthmus, Book of Mormon travelers truly had to have a reason for wanting to go that direction. On a map of Mesoamerica today, they would have wanted to go easterly to get to such modern-named locations as Palenque, El Mirador, Tikal, Becan, the department of Peten in Guatemala, the country of Belize, or the Caribbean Sea (Atlantic Ocean). Thus, from a Book of Mormon perspective, east from the narrow neck of land (Tehuantepec) was one of the Nephite cardinal directions. Did it have anything to do with the rising sun, the positioning of buildings or temples, the time of year, or Old World directional systems? Answer: Who knows? From the perspective of Tehuantepec, their east was the same direction as today’s cardinal direction of east. That just happens to be an outcome of Alma 22. Among other locations that would have induced them to go east were the east wilderness with its numerous cities and the east sea with its numerous cities. Why else would these geographic locations be designated as “east” if they indeed weren’t east according to the Nephites’ cardinal direction of east?

So how did they go east from the top of the isthmus? They had two choices.

The first choice was to travel immediately in an easterly direction. In the rainy season, that route was virtually impossible because of the massive amounts of rain that fell, the extremely wet environment from marshes, rivers, and forested areas, and the lack of adequate food and supplies from people along the way (the area was so sparsely settled during Book of Mormon times that settlers were not available to help with food and supplies). A major geographic location in this direction from the perspectives of both the Book of Mormon and the modern map of Mesoamerica was the “land among many waters, rivers, and fountains”—wording that aptly describes the lagoons of Campeche and Tabasco, Mexico. During the dry season, the conditions were not much better for the same reasons other than rainfall.

The second choice was to use the route that nearly everyone used who had to walk between the land northward and the land southward. That route was (1) south through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and then southeasterly along the Pacific coast and up to the land of Nephi or (2) easterly along the Pacific coast, over the mountains of Chiapas and down into the land of Zarahemla, and then east to the east wilderness and the east sea. Why else would the Nephites use the names of “east wilderness” and “east sea” if these major geographic locations were not indeed east of the land northward?

10. To get to the land of Nephi from the top of the isthmus, travelers had similar choices. First, they could walk south through the isthmus, southeasterly along the Pacific coast to somewhere near the “land of their fathers’ first inheritance,” and then easterly up into the mountains and into the land of Nephi. Second, they could walk south through the isthmus, easterly along the Pacific coast, over the mountains of Chiapas and down into the land of Zarahemla, along the route of today’s Pan-American Highway to Comitan, Mexico, and then up into the mountains and southward until they reached the area of modern-day Guatemala City.

11. Travelers who walked from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (narrow neck of land) to Guatemala City (city of Nephi) crossed over the narrow strip of wilderness that ran from the east sea (Caribbean Sea/Atlantic Ocean somewhere off the coasts of Guatemala or Belize) to the west sea (Pacific Ocean near the bottom of Tehuantepec). This is the only range of mountains in the entire New World that runs from a “sea” on the east to a “sea” on the west. The logic of the Nephites’ using their cardinal directions of east and west to describe the narrow strip of wilderness is evident. How else would they describe this narrow mountain range that reached from a sea on the east to a sea on the west and that separated the land of Nephi from the land of Zarahemla?

Clearly, the geographic locations in the Book of Mormon with an orientation of east or west can easily be located in Mesoamerica when Mormon’s horizontal hourglass map is overlaid on a map of Mesoamerica. Clearly also is the fact that the overlaying of maps proves that east is east and west is west—especially when a traveler is positioned at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the natural Nephite location to test the cardinal directions of the Nephites, or when a traveler is positioned off the east coast of Belize.

So are Book of Mormon scholars accurate in their choice of words if they say that the Nephites used the cardinal directions of twenty-first-century societies? Answer: Yes and no. “Yes” because the Nephites’ cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west are identical to the twenty-first-century cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west. “No” because the Nephites also included “northward” and “southward” in their cardinal directions.

Bottom line: The ramifications of knowing that “east” to the Nephites is the same direction as “east” is to today’s readers of the Book of Mormon have far-reaching implications for understanding Book of Mormon geography. Based on an analysis of Sorenson’s vertical hourglass map depicting Book of Mormon geography, here are the primary outcomes of knowing that east is east to the Nephites and of recognizing that Sorenson has illegitimately rotated his compass of Mesoamerica to make north his east:⁵¹

• The sea east is not the Gulf of Mexico.

• The east wilderness is not located in the vicinity where the river Sidon flows north into the sea.

• The narrow neck of land (Isthmus of Tehuantepec) must run north and south rather than east and west (misinterpreted by Sorenson to be “from the east [sea] to the west sea” on Sorenson’s hourglass map).

• The narrow strip of wilderness must run from the sea east to the sea west rather than in some nebulous territory of the land southward without touching any sea on either the east or the west.

• The river Sidon must flow north and end up in a sea on the north rather than flow into the sea east.

• The hill Shim, hill Ramah/Cumorah, and waters of Ripliancum cannot be located near the sea east but must be located near the Gulf of Mexico, which is north—not east—of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

• The cities of Bountiful, Mulek, Gid, Omner, Jershon, Morianton, Lehi, and Moroni cannot be located near either the Isthmus of Tehuantepec or the Gulf of Mexico but must be located “far away” to the east of the isthmus.

When Book of Mormon scholars recognize that “east was east and west was west” to the Nephites, they can readily construct a legitimate horizontal hourglass map that correctly overlays a map of Mesoamerica.⁵²

The Location of the East Sea and East Wilderness of the Book of Mormon

The ultimate goal of an exercise in creating an internal map on paper of the geography of the Book of Mormon should be that of overlaying that map on the real-world geographical real estate where the events of the Book of Mormon took place. John Sorenson’s geography is definitely correct in identifying that real-world real estate as Mesoamerica and in identifying the narrow neck of land aspect of that real-world real estate as the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

However, Sorenson simply cannot overlay his vertical hourglass map on a map of Mesoamerica and make the two match. If Mormon is standing in the middle of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, ultimate geographic questions to ask him are the following: “Which way is east? Which way is the east sea? Which way do I go to find the first century BC cities along the east seashore? Which way is the east wilderness? Which way do I go to find the first century BC defensive earthworks and cities of the east wilderness?”

East is a critical direction on Mormon’s map—especially because that direction is part of two major geographic components of his map. Those two components are the east sea and the east wilderness together with the attendant east-seashore cities of the first century BC and the east-wilderness defensive earthworks of the first century BC.

A compound error that Sorenson makes in his model for Book of Mormon geography is associated with the east sea and the east wilderness.

If Sorenson had created his internal map on paper by using an hourglass model lying on its side, he could have placed the resulting map over a map of Mesoamerica and realistically located the east sea, the first-century cities located near the seashore of the east sea, the east wilderness, and the first century BC defensive earthworks and cities of the east wilderness. As he shows on his vertical hourglass maps on the inside front and back covers of Mormon’s Map, his east sea is the Gulf of Mexico, and his east wilderness is near the Gulf of Mexico. He positions the first century BC cities of the east seashore along the Gulf of Mexico near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec—in other words, in Olmec/Jaredite territory. And he doesn’t show the location of the first century BC defensive earthworks of the east wilderness. Thus, his vertical hourglass map of Mesoamerica is a fake; it does not match the map of Mesoamerica—the New World setting for the Book of Mormon. In other words, Sorenson has let the distortions caused by his vertical hourglass confuse him about which way was east on Mormon’s map.

One potential way of verifying which direction was east to Book of Mormon peoples is to locate the east sea. The way to locate the east sea is to first, locate an ocean in Mesoamerica and second, try to locate several archaeological sites near that ocean that date to the first century BC. The only two oceans that can possibly be considered are the Gulf of Mexico, which is Sorenson’s choice for the east sea, and the Caribbean Sea, which forms the eastern borders for the country of Belize and the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Obviously, the Gulf of Mexico is north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and the Caribbean is east of the isthmus. Just as obviously, if Sorenson’s rotated compass is legitimate, the Gulf of Mexico is the east sea. If his rotated compass is illegitimate, the Caribbean is the east sea.

Why try to locate near the seashore in question a number of archaeological sites that date to the first century BC? Answer: Because Mormon vividly describes the building and location of these cities as he tells the story of the Nephites’ occupation of Zarahemla’s east wilderness in the first century BC. Mormon mentions this event as follows: “And it came to pass that Moroni caused that his armies should go forth into the east wilderness; yea and they went forth and drove all the Lamanites who were in the east wilderness into their [the Lamanites’] own lands, which were south of the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 50:7; emphasis added). Allen and Allen tell the story of this occupation as follows:

Perhaps nowhere is the comparison between the Preclassic Maya record and the Classic Nephite (200 BC–AD 1) record more synonymously represented than in the building programs.

About 70 BC, Moroni ordered his armies into the east wilderness to drive the Lamanites back into their own lands, which were south of the east wilderness and south of the land of Zarahemla. The east wilderness was east of the land/city of Zarahemla (see Alma 50:1–10).

We read in Alma 50:13–15 the following: “And it came to pass that the Nephites began the foundation of a city, and they called the name of the city Moroni; and it was by the east sea; and it was on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites. And they also began a foundation for a city between the city of Moroni and the city of Aaron, joining the borders of Aaron and Moroni; and they called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah. And they also began in that same year to build many cities on the north, one in a particular manner which they called Lehi, which was in the north by the borders of the seashore” (Alma 50:13–15; emphasis added).

This massive building program undertaken by the first century BC Nephites in the east wilderness corresponds with the massive building program undertaken by the Preclassic Maya in the Peten jungle of Guatemala.

Both records also complement each other when they describe defensive cities in detail. . . .

The first century BC Nephites built along the east sea. The Late Preclassic Maya built along the shores of the Caribbean.

In the east wilderness, the first century BC Nephites built cities that they named Nephihah and Moronihah. The Late Preclassic Maya built cities in the Peten with names like Yaxha and Pusilha.

The Lamanites conquered the Nephites in the east wilderness in the first century BC, during which time the Lamanites had a king named Lamoni. The Late Preclassic Maya named one city Lamanai, which was built in the Late Preclassic Period in the country of Belize.⁵³

From a modern vernacular, Allen and Allen describe Moroni’s east-wilderness and east-sea ventures as follows: “Moroni’s strategy appears to be an amazing homestead act, as it caused people to go into the Peten jungle (east wilderness) to build cities. This is the same area where many cities were built in the first century BC, as evidenced by archaeological documentation. . . . The inhabitants in the land of Zarahemla (Chiapas) and in the land round about apparently settled all the way to the seashore along the coast of Belize.⁵⁴

The geographic areas involved here are the east wilderness (Peten-Belize), which is north of the land of Nephi (highland Guatemala), and the east sea (the Caribbean Sea off the east coast of Belize).

But what about the Nephite cities that were constructed near the east seashore during the first century BC? On Sorenson’s vertical hourglass map in the inside cover of Mormon’s Map, he shows the cities of Bountiful, Mulek, Gid, Omner, Jershon, Morianton, Lehi, Nephihah, and Moroni near the narrow neck of land and along or near the seashore of his east sea, which is the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, he locates all these first century BC Nephite cities immediately east of the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Frankly, that’s an insane error. This real estate, if viewed on a horizontal hourglass map or on the map of Mesoamerica, according to the archaeological and historical records of Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon, is Olmec/Jaredite territory. Sorenson’s first century BC cities would be located over the top of or in the middle of Olmec/Jaredite cities. That outcome is simply not an aspect of what happened in the first century BC historical record of Mesoamerica.

Where were these first century BC Nephite cities located? Allen and Allen make a case for locating them east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and east of the land of Zarahemla along their proposed location of the east sea, the Caribbean Sea off the east coast of Belize:

By locating the city of Mulek, we can then determine the location of the city Bountiful. The city of Mulek and the city Bountiful were in close proximity to each other, as outlined in Alma 52:18–24. Mulek was located along the east seashore, and it became a part of the land of Zarahemla during the first century BC Nephite expansion (see Alma 50:7–8; 51:26; 52:22).

Because the city of Mulek was close to the city Bountiful, we can also determine that Mulek was located north of other eastern seaboard cities such as Moroni, Gid, Omner, Lehi, and Morianton. Hence, Bountiful and Mulek were neighbors, even though they were located in different lands. The city of Mulek was located in the land of Zarahemla’s east wilderness, and the city of Bountiful was located in the land of Bountiful. Today, that situation is comparable to Corozal, Belize, located near Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico. They are close, but they are in two separate countries.

If the archaeological site of Cerros located in northern Belize is the city of Mulek, . . . then Dzibanche is an excellent candidate for the city Bountiful. After regaining the city of Mulek in the year 65 BC, the Nephites caused the Lamanite prisoners to fortify the city Bountiful. Mormon makes a correction in the text when he states, “Moroni caused that they [the Lamanite prisoners] should commence laboring in digging a ditch round about the land, or the city, Bountiful” (emphasis added). Mormon tells us that it is the city Bountiful and not the land Bountiful that had defensive earthworks surrounding it. Of course, the land Bountiful would have been too large for such an undertaking. The city of Bountiful became an “exceeding stronghold” from that time forth (Alma 53:3–5).⁵⁵

Sorenson’s description of these same incidents seems logical as long as readers do not relate his words—as he intends—to his vertical hourglass. That is, he uses the same jargon as found in the Book of Mormon, but his mind is thinking “Gulf of Mexico and nearby territory.” He says:

The best confirmation of the sizable scale of the borders by the east sea comes from Helaman 4. Lamanite armies drove the Nephites “into the land Bountiful,” but after a time the Nephites counterattacked and regained “even the half of all their [traditional] possessions” (Helaman 4:6, 10, 16). The prophet-brothers Nephi₂ and Lehi₂ then proceeded to work through the reconquered territory from the north, preaching repentance as they went. Beginning at the city Bountiful, the pair went through Gid, Mulek, and “from one city to another, until they had gone forth among all the people of Nephi who were in the land southward” (see Helaman 5:14–16). That is, when taken together with the land of Bountiful, the lands possessed by the Nephites in what they called the borders by the east sea actually constituted half of their original land-southward possessions. Clearly, the lowlands toward the east sea were a large stretch of real estate. The theater for all this action could not have been a strip of land only, say, five or ten miles in width; it had to have been thirty or forty miles across to make these statements credible.

The nature of the area between the coastal “borders by the east sea” and the mountainous “narrow strip of wilderness” is unclear in the Book of Mormon text.⁵⁶

Why must he say that “the nature of the area between the coastal ‘borders by the east sea’ and the mountainous ‘narrow strip of wilderness’ is unclear in the Book of Mormon text”? Answer: Because he’s in the wrong geographic area of Mesoamerica. If he were to place his hourglass map in a horizontal position and then place his map over a map of Mesoamerica, he would realize that the “nature” of this “unclear” area is the lowland jungle area labeled the “east wilderness” by Mormon. If Sorenson would admit that he’s misinterpreting Alma 22:32 and then use a horizontal hourglass map placed over a map of Mesoamerica, he would recognize that his east wilderness is in the location of the Book of Mormon’s “land among many waters.” That’s about as illogical an outcome as could be conceived. Mormon does not speak of this area as “wilderness” but rather identifies it with the Limhi expedition: “And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters” (Mosiah 8:8).

“Wilderness” areas to the Nephites in the New World involved two kinds of terrain: (1) mountainous territory covered with dense forests and underbrush and (2) lowland jungle area with dense forests and foliage of all kinds. Mormon does not apply the term “wilderness” to such areas as the waters of Ripliancum or the “land among many waters.” He does apply it to the territory known as the east wilderness. Logically, this area is east of the narrow neck of land as well as east of the land of Zarahemla. In fact, the area could be labeled as “Zarahemla’s east wilderness.”

How can readers of the Book of Mormon determine definitively where the east wilderness was located? Answer: “Show me some Mesoamerica real estate that is wilderness in nature, that exhibits lots of Maya Preclassic sites dating to the first century BC, and that contains what archaeologists call ‘defensive earthworks’ around these sites—and I’ll show you the east wilderness of the Book of Mormon.” That answer is associated with the content of Alma 49–50.

Where are such sites located? Answer: In the lowland jungle area of the department of Peten, Guatemala, and the country of Belize. This real estate just happens to be east of the narrow neck of land (Tehuantepec) and east of Sorenson’s land of Zarahemla. This territory contains numerous archaeological sites that date to the first century BC. Essentially, all these sites have defensive earthworks that are uncannily comparable to those described by Mormon in Alma 49–50. As an interesting aside, these defensive earthworks were unknown to the world of archaeology until well into the latter half of the twentieth century. They are still being discovered around cities in the Peten and Belize as excavation work progresses among the sites there.

One archaeological report written by non-Mormon archaeologists describes the defensive earthworks around Tikal with the following key features:⁵⁷

• “The trench is the most prominent feature of the earthworks.”

• “[The trench] had a continuous raised embankment along the south side, and . . . it passed up and down over hills, following a fairly straight line.”

• “[The trench’s] potential as a barrier to human movement was obvious.”

• “The four-meter width of the trench posed an obstacle few Maya could have crossed by jumping.”

• “[That] the trench was impassable is suggested by the fact that at four or five widely separated points along its length we found what appeared to be causeways across it. At each of these there was an equivalent gap in the embankment. If the earthworks were not a barrier to human passage these “gates” would have little reason to exist.”

• “Several days’ work in the trench revealed that it had been cut into limestone bedrock to a depth of three meters and that in its original state the walls of the trench had been nearly vertical.”

• “The limited exploration of most lowland Maya sites makes it impossible to say that defensive earthworks of this nature are unique to Tikal or even rare. . . . Who is to say that similar earthworks do not exist elsewhere?”

That language so closely parallels Mormon’s words in describing Moroni’s military strategy in building defensive earthworks around cities of the first century BC lowland jungle area of Peten and Belize that the non-Mormon archaeologists who wrote the comments could almost be accused of copying the language of Mormon in Alma 49–50:

• “Moroni had stationed an army by the borders of the city, and they had cast up dirt round about to shield them from the arrows and the stones of the Lamanites” (Alma 49:2).

• “The Nephites had dug up a ridge of earth round about them, which was so high that the Lamanites could not cast their stones and their arrows at them that they might take effect” (Alma 49:4).

• “Neither could [the Lamanites] come upon [the Nephites] save it was by their place of entrance” (Alma 49:4)

• “To [the Lamanites’] uttermost astonishment, [the Nephites] were prepared for them, in a manner which never had been known among the children of Lehi. Now they were prepared for the Lamanites, to battle after the manner of the instructions of Moroni” (Alma 49:8).

• “[The Lamanites] knew not that Moroni had fortified, or had builtforts of security, for every city in all the land round about” (Alma 49:13).

• “The Lamanites could not get into [the Nephites’] forts of security by any other way save by the entrance, because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about, save it were by the entrance” (Alma 49:18).

• “[The Nephites] were prepared, yea, a body of their strongest men, with their swords and their slings, to smite down all who should attempt to come into their place of security by the place of entrance” (Alma 49:20).

• “The captains of the Lamanites brought up their armies before the place of entrance, and began to contend with the Nephites, to get into theirplace of security; but behold, they were driven back from time to time, insomuch that they were slain with an immense slaughter” (Alma 49:21).

• “Now when [the Lamanites] found that they could not obtain power over the Nephites by the pass, they began to dig down their banks of earth that they might obtain a pass to their armies, that they might have an equal chance to fight; but behold, in these attempts they were swept off by the stones and arrows which were thrown at them; and instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead and wounded bodies” (Alma 49:22).

• “Moroni . . . caused that his armies . . . should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the [east wilderness] which was possessed by the Nephites” (Alma 50:1).

• “Upon the top of these ridges of earth [Moroni] caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities” (Alma 50:2).

In another archaeological report dealing with Becan, which easily could be one of the cities named in the east wilderness, the non-Mormon archaeologist makes the following statement:

Perhaps the most knotty problem is how to explain the uniqueness of the fortifications themselves. Neither the existence of a defensive system at Becan nor its ditch-embankment pattern seems particularly surprising to me; whatever uniqueness these conditions suggest is probably more reflective of our inadequate archaeological knowledge than any sort of new event or process in lowland civilization. After all, several apparent fortifications utilizing the earthwork principle have cropped up recently. I suspect that the ditch-embankment type of defensive system is of great antiquity in the lowlands because of its advantages of simplicity, adaptability, and efficient use in conjunction with timber palisades. In other words, the Becan fortifications may be an exaggeration of an indigenous prototype. We can speculate, of course, that the Becan defenses might have been inspired by the fortifications at Tikal, but this gets us nowhere, for we have no known antecedents for the Tikal ditch either, certainly not in the “militaristic” highlands. There remains the possibility that the fortifications at Becan were the brainchild of some local innovator; the basic pattern is simple enough, as its widespread occurrence suggests.⁵⁸

To readers of the Book of Mormon, the “brainchild of some local innovator” clearly refers to Moroni and his military endeavors in the east wilderness of the first century BC. The forthright statement made earlier, “Show me some Mesoamerica real estate that is wilderness in nature, that exhibits lots of Maya Preclassic sites dating to the first century BC, and that contains what archaeologists call ‘defensive earthworks’ around these sites—and I’ll show you the east wilderness of the Book of Mormon,” takes on new meaning at this point. The defensive earthworks of the Book of Mormon are found largely in the lowland jungle area of Peten and Belize. The presence of these earthworks in this area testifies strongly of six outcomes:

1. The east wilderness is located in the Peten of Guatemala and the country of Belize.

2. The east wilderness is indeed east of the narrow neck of land and the land of Zarahemla.

3. The cardinal direction of east was indeed east to the Nephites.

4. Sorenson’s identification of the east wilderness near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and close to the Gulf of Mexico is, indeed, an error that Sorenson needs to correct in his research and writing.

5. The east sea is indeed east of the narrow neck of land and the land of Zarahemla and is the Caribbean Sea (Atlantic Ocean) off the east coast of Belize.

6. Sorenson’s vertical hourglass map of Book of Mormon sites and features is bogus and should be discarded—or at the very least turned on its side in a horizontal position after his recognition of the fact that the four cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west used by North and South Americans today are among the six cardinal directions of north, northward, south, southward, east, and west of the Nephites.

Sorenson surely is aware of the massive archaeological evidence associated with the radiocarbon dating of sites and artifacts from the seashore area of Belize, and he also is surely aware of the archaeological findings associated with defensive earthworks in the Peten and Belize. Why has he not incorporated these data into his model for Book of Mormon geography? First potential answer: Who knows? Second potential answer: He has never felt that the lowland jungle areas of the Peten and Belize, along with the entire area of the Yucatan, have anything to do with Book of Mormon events and geography. Perhaps he had already finalized his thinking about the east sea and the east wilderness before the archaeological evidences from the Peten and Belize found their way into the archaeological literature. Or perhaps his belief that north is east to the Nephites so dominates his thinking and geographic model that he simply cannot backtrack to correct that thinking.

The Location of the Narrow Strip of Wilderness

The final error that Sorenson makes in his vertical hourglass model for Book of Mormon geography is associated with the narrow strip of wilderness. The phrase “narrow strip of wilderness” occurs only once in the Book of Mormon:

And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided. (Alma 22:27; emphasis added)

Sorenson’s narrow strip of wilderness as shown on his vertical hourglass maps inside the front and back covers of Mormon’s Map is clearly labeled, but the process of determining the actual real estate of Mesoamerica to which Sorenson is referring is difficult. He makes several statements in his writings that may or may not clarify the location in the minds of readers.

He actually shows a map of Mesoamerica rather than a vertical hourglass map and labels the “wilderness strip” angling northwest toward his east sea (Gulf of Mexico).⁵⁹ On this map, his wilderness strip lies between the Usumacinta River and the Grijalva River but is much closer to the Usumacinta than the Grijalva. The strip angles in the same general direction as the flow of the Usumacinta. His “wilderness strip” touches neither the ocean at the top of the map (his east sea; Gulf of Mexico) nor the ocean at the bottom of the map (his west sea; Pacific Ocean). He says: “The mountainous band of wilderness separating highland Guatemala from central Chiapas is in the right place to be the ‘narrow strip of wilderness’ of the Nephites. Out of it flow the streams whose confluence forms the Grijalva or Sidon.”⁶⁰ He also says: “The main Nephite stronghold in the center of the land along the river Sidon was separated from the Lamanites by ‘a narrow strip of wilderness’ (Alma 22:27); it was composed of rugged mountains within which lay the headwaters of the river Sidon. The Nephites sat in the land of Zarahemla, just northward from that transverse strip of wilderness and southward from the narrow neck.”⁶¹

As pointed out previously, Sorenson makes one statement as follows: “The nature of the area between the coastal ‘borders by the east sea’ and the mountainous ‘narrow strip of wilderness’ is unclear in the Book of Mormon text.”⁶² That statement seems to say to readers, “I’m lost.”

In all his statements and on all his maps, he reflects the error of dealing with the most significant aspect of the narrow strip of wilderness. Mormon’s wording in Alma 22:27 is “narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west.” Thus, in this verse—unlike Alma 22:32—Mormon clearly names both the east sea and the west sea, this time associated with the narrow strip of wilderness.

Obviously, if Sorenson were so distorted in his orientation because of his vertical hourglass map, he could look for a narrow strip of wilderness that touched two oceans. That narrow strip of wilderness must run from the east to the west. Sorenson “sort of” angles his “wilderness strip” from his distorted east to west (really north to south), but he doesn’t come close to touching two oceans in the process.

In the New World, where can Book of Mormon readers find a “narrow strip of wilderness” (interpreted to be a narrow mountain range) that runs from east to west—from a sea on the east to a sea on the west? Answer: Only one location in the entire New World has a narrow strip of mountainous area that runs from east to west—beginning at a sea on the east and ending at a sea on the west. That narrow strip of wilderness is the Cuchumatanes mountain range and connected mountains that run from the Caribbean Sea off the small east coast of Guatemala/Belize and ends at the base of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. From the perspective of the Alma 22 Lamanite king in the land of Nephi, then, the east sea is the Caribbean Sea (Atlantic Ocean), and the Pacific Ocean at the base of the isthmus is the west sea. Or, as Allen and Allen state:

Natural boundaries played a major role in the divisions of the ancient cultures of Mesoamerica. The most common boundary lines consisted of mountains and bodies of water. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec has long been a natural dividing line. In the long history of the Maya, including up to the present, the Maya never crossed to the west of the Isthmus. The Book of Mormon probably honored that same idea, as it states that there was “a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). Further, “And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward” (Mormon 2:29).

Today, the peaks of the mountains form the dividing lines between countries. The top of the volcanic mountain peak Tacana divides the state of Chiapas, Mexico, from the country of Guatemala. During the middle Nephite time period, 100 BC, the dividing line between the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla was a narrow strip of wilderness (see Alma 22:27). In all probability, this division consisted of the mountain peaks of a narrow mountain range that today is called Sierras Cuchumatanes. It tails off from the Sierra Madres and runs from east to west, or from the Caribbean, Atlantic side, to the Gulf of Tehuantepec, Pacific side. “[And the land of Nephi] was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west” (Alma 22:27).⁶³

Sorenson has committed an error by failing to identify the Mesoamerica narrow strip of wilderness correctly. His blunder is in failing to deal with the language Mormon used: “a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west” (Alma 22:27; emphasis added). His blunder is precipitated by his use of a vertical hourglass map that forbids him to identify any narrow strip of mountain range in Mesoamerica that runs north to south as a condition of running between his east sea (Gulf of Mexico) and west sea (Pacific Ocean).

Summary and Conclusions

The discussion to this point has not presented much of what might be called “new” information. That is, over the past quarter century, surely scholars associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) must have thought about the issues related to the seven errors that Sorenson makes in his vertical hourglass model for Book of Mormon geography. But why has no one associated with FARMS stepped forward to challenge Sorenson’s thinking?

Natural answers to that question evolve around an understanding of Sorenson’s relationships with FARMS. In some respects, John L. Sorenson is FARMS. He helped organize it at its outset and has “worked” for FARMS in one capacity or another ever since. Even more suspicious is the fact that FARMS publishes several of his books. FARMS definitely does not publish other books that deviate from or that challenge Sorenson’s thinking about Book of Mormon geography. Have the executives and scholars at FARMS agreed that they will not go counter to Sorenson’s thinking as they publish articles and books? Are they afraid that valid challenges to Sorenson’s work will affect sales of Sorenson’s books and thereby bring about a financial shortfall? Surely someone at FARMS must have thought about the consequences of merely turning Sorenson’s hourglass on its side and placing it over a map of Mesoamerica. Why hasn’t that someone stepped forward and published something from the perspective of FARMS that suggests legitimate Book of Mormon geographic perspectives other than those espoused by Sorenson?

Frankly, the time has come for Sorenson to admit that he has misinterpreted Alma 22:32 and, in the process, adjust his thinking about the narrow neck of land. In the process, he and others who have adopted his model for Book of Mormon geography need to admit that the Nephite Maya and the Lamanite Maya knew which way east was; that the Gulf of Mexico is north—not east—of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; that the Gulf of Mexico is not the east sea; that the east sea and east wilderness of Zarahemla are east of Zarahemla; that the east sea is the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Guatemala/Belize; and that the narrow strip of wilderness, which indeed “ran from the sea east even to the sea west” (Alma 22:27), is the narrow mountain range that divides highland Guatemala from lowland Guatemala and Chiapas, Mexico—the only “strip of wilderness” in the New World that runs from east to west and “touches” two oceans in the process.⁶⁴

Based on the discussion above, the following conclusions seem to be relevant, valid outcomes of this analysis of Sorenson’s work:

1. The critical criteria for identifying the New World setting for the Book of Mormon prove that Mesoamerica—and only Mesoamerica—is the land of the Book of Mormon.

2. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the only narrow neck of land (isthmus) that matches the content of the Book of Mormon and that reflects findings from the archaeological and historical records of Mesoamerica.

3. Errors made by scholars who are attempting to interpret the meaning of scriptural content of the Book of Mormon cast doubt on the validity of the work of such scholars and negate the impact of their scholarship in both academic and nonacademic circles.

4. In attempting to determine the width of the narrow neck of land based on the day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, Sorenson commits error one because the day and a half’s journey applies to the length of one of the Nephites’ defensive lines in the first century BC rather than to the distance across the narrow neck of land. The Book of Mormon contains nothing whatsoever about the width across the narrow neck of land. However, readers can be assured that the distance is about 150 miles because the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is unquestionably the narrow neck of land of the Book of Mormon.

5. The second error committed by Sorenson is his adoption—but probably not the creation—of the “Nephite north” because he misreads “from the east to the west sea” as “from the east [sea] to the west sea.” In the process, he rotates the compass such that his narrow neck of land runs east to west rather than the north-to-south orientation of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

6. Sorenson sets up a third error because he uses a vertical hourglass map on paper and thereby distorts Mormon’s map and directions with the outcome that the end result does not permit Sorenson to overlay his vertical hourglass map on a map of Mesoamerica. The error is Sorenson’s failure to recognize that the Nephites used six cardinal directions (north, northward, south, southward, east, and west) rather than the typical four to which readers are accustomed (north, south, east, and west).

7. Sorenson’s fourth error arises because he misidentifies the location of the narrow pass in the narrow neck of land. The error he makes is his failure to recognize that guarding his narrow pass, which is a sandstone and gravel formation toward the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, would not keep marauding forces out of the land northward or out of the land of Zarahemla.

8. Sorenson fails to recognize the role and location of the defensive lines of a day and a half’s journey and a day’s journey. The fifth error he commits is in not recognizing that these are defensive lines that must be located near the base of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec—rather than within the isthmus itself—because they must run “from the east to the west sea” and “from the west sea, even unto the east.” He distorts the wording of Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7 by his misinterpretation of these verses because the results of his thinking reflect the language of “from the east [sea] to the west sea” and “from the west sea, even unto the east [sea].”

9. A sixth error arises when Sorenson misidentifies the location of the narrow strip of wilderness. He fails to note the clearness of Mormon’s statement that the narrow strip of wilderness “ran from the sea east even to the sea west.” Rather than a narrow mountain range that runs from a sea on the east to a sea on the west, Sorenson’s narrow strip of wilderness is a landlocked mountainous formation that doesn’t touch any sea and that runs north to south on Mesoamerica’s map.

10. The seventh error created by Sorenson is a compound error because he does not identify correctly the locations of the east sea and the east wilderness. His east sea is the Gulf of Mexico, and his east wilderness is located near the Gulf of Mexico. He apparently ignores the Mesoamerica archaeological record that reflects data associated with numerous first century BC cities near the east coast of Belize and numerous instances of first-century defensive earthworks and cities throughout sites in the Peten and in Belize.

11. On one hand, Sorenson maintains that issues of Book of Mormon geography have been settled because his geography is the correct one. On the other hand, he expresses his willingness to change his theories and hypotheses if an appropriate need is demonstrated. However, any one of the seven errors identified in this article is of such impact that he should change his approach to and model for Book of Mormon geography.

12. In the past, FARMS has reflected extreme loyalty to Sorenson’s geography of the Book of Mormon. Now that FARMS functions under the umbrella of the Brigham Young University Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, the question arises as to whether FARMS will continue espousing extreme loyalty to Sorenson’s geography. Continued refusals by FARMS to publish rebuttals to Sorenson’s work or rebuttals to reviews by FARMS can only be interpreted as a conflict of interest on FARMS’s part because of the financial outcomes they (and presumably now the Maxwell Institute) receive from publishing Sorenson’s books.

13. Because Sorenson works with a vertical hourglass rather than a horizontal hourglass, he negates the possibility of overlaying his hourglass map on a map of Mesoamerica. Therefore, Sorenson’s readers face extreme difficulties in relating many—if not most—of Sorenson’s geographic statements to Mesoamerica—the New World setting for the Book of Mormon.

14. All of Sorenson’s Book of Mormon geographic statements are couched in relation to his vertical hourglass map with a narrow neck that runs from east to west and without any reflection of the Nephite directions of northward and southward. Lay readers are simply incapable of transliterating his words to a horizontal hourglass map and then to a map of Mesoamerica. The result is a failure on Sorenson’s part to truly communicate Book of Mormon geographical pointers to his readers because they typically do not have the Mesoamerica maturity to relate his comments to a map of Mesoamerica.

15. Sorenson states that “from the east to the west sea” is the equivalent of “from the east [sea] to the west sea.” This belief on his part is evidence of his misinterpretation of Alma 22:32—a misreading that requires him to rotate the compass to create the “Nephite north” and thereby to distort Mormon’s map. The resulting distortions affect the location and purposes of the narrow neck of land, the narrow pass, the east sea, the east wilderness, the first century BC cities, Moroni’s defensive earthworks, and the narrow strip of wilderness. The resulting confusion has stalled or impacted negatively a valid model for Book of Mormon geography for about three decades.

16. “And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” has nothing to do with the narrow neck of land except the proximity of the resulting defensive line to the area of the narrow neck. The defensive line begins at some point east of the narrow neck and extends to the west sea. Therefore, the defensive line must be located somewhere relatively near the base of the narrow neck of land (Isthmus of Tehuantepec).

17. The phrase “for a Nephite” in Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7 probably is merely Mormon’s way of saying that in the Nephite measuring system, a day’s travel time is equal to about eight miles and a day-and-a-half’s travel time is equal to about twelve miles. Therefore, “for a Nephite” has no special meaning beyond the measuring system employed by the Nephites.

18. The defensive lines of a day and a half’s journey in Alma 22:32 and a day’s journey in Helaman 4:7 must be located outside the Isthmus of Tehuantepec near the Pacific Ocean because of the phrasing “from the east unto the west sea” and “from the west sea, even unto the east.” Thus, these defensive lines must be outside the narrow neck of land but also must be in the vicinity of the south side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (narrow neck of land) and must relate directly with the Pacific Ocean (west sea).

19. If travelers were in the land northward, the narrow pass led into the land southward; and if travelers were in the land southward, the narrow pass led into the land northward. In other words, the narrow pass was located in the narrow neck of land; and nearly all of the Book of Mormon traffic between the land northward and the land southward went through the narrow pass of the narrow neck. The Nephites defended territory near the south end of the narrow neck to keep Lamanites from going north through the narrow pass and thence into the land northward or to keep the Lamanites from traveling west along the Pacific coast, crossing over the mountains at an accessible point, and then moving into the land of Zarahemla.

20. Sorenson is confused about the location of the narrow pass. By positioning it as “an irregular sandstone and gravel formation” or “gravelly ridge” at the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, he fails to see that the Nephites would gain nothing by defending this real estate because Lamanites who reached it would already be in the land northward. Further, Sorenson’s narrow pass would in no way keep the Lamanites from invading Zarahemla. That is, Sorenson’s gravelly ridge deals exclusively with travel from east to west across the narrow neck of land at the top of the narrow neck—not through the narrow neck in north-to-south or south-to-north directions.

21. Readers of the Book of Mormon are quite naturally inclined to read Alma 22:32’s “from the east to the west sea” as “from the east [sea] to the west sea.” Sorenson’s interpretation of the verse in this fashion is the root cause of his rotating the compass to accommodate the Gulf of Mexico as the east sea of the Book of Mormon. This rendering of Alma 22:32 by itself has probably led to more confusion about Book of Mormon geography than any other verse of scripture in the Book of Mormon.

22. One logical location for the Nephites’ defensive lines in Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7 begins at the Pacific coast fishing village of Paredon, Chiapas, Mexico, and extends eastward into the mountains toward the archaeological site of Tonala. Paredon in Spanish means “big wall”—a likely reflection of a defensive wall that existed at one historical point in Paredon.

23. The “Nephite coordinate system,” which required a northwest rotation of the compass by about seventy degrees, enables the Gulf of Mexico at the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to be labeled the “east sea.” The result is also known as “Nephite north,” in which north is translated to a west-north-west in modern directional terms. The Book of Mormon itself contains no justification whatsoever for the “Nephite north.” The concept is either the invention of John L. Sorenson or David A. Palmer—or both. Whether Book of Mormon readers refer to this compass rotation as “Nephite north” or “Sorenson’s north,” the result is the same—an illogical, illegitimate reading of Alma 22:32.

24. Sorenson logically deduced that the overall “shape” of a map of Book of Mormon lands reflected an hourglass because of the “land northward,” “land southward,” and “narrow neck of land” in between the two. He then illogically created his hourglass model by standing the hourglass map in an upright, or vertical, position. Had he positioned his hourglass model in a horizontal position as a reflection of the east-to-west and northward/southward orientations of Mesoamerica, he likely would not have felt the need to rotate the compass to create the “Nephite north” (or “Sorenson’s north” if readers acquiesce to his preference for having nothing to do with the “Nephite north”).

25. In spite of a variety of directional systems found among cultures of the world, the directional system of the Nephites is consistently reflected throughout the Book of Mormon. That directional system involves six cardinal points rather than the traditional four: north, northward, south, southward, east, and west.

26. The Book of Mormon reflects some kind of obvious directional system that readers are expected to relate to as they attempt to understand the content of the Book of Mormon. An analysis of the Alma 22 geography content suggests that it was included by Mormon so readers of the last days could relate correctly to the content of his abridgment. If so, the four cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west used by Mormon coincide very closely with today’s cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west.

27. The Nephite cardinal directions of “northward” and “southward” are unique when viewed from their orientation at the narrow neck of land (Isthmus of Tehuantepec). As the dividing line between the land northward and the land southward, the narrow neck of land justifies these two cardinal points as being distinctive among all cultures of the world—an outcome that has great merit when Mormon’s map is placed over a map of Mesoamerica.

28. The “narrow pass” through the narrow neck of land (Isthmus of Tehuantepec) was the route used almost exclusively by pre-Columbian travelers who walked or marched from the land southward to the land northward or vice versa. Today’s travelers through this same route can “feel” the relevance of the term “narrow pass” as they experience the impenetrable mountains to the left and right (west and east) as they travel north or south through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

29. When Book of Mormon scholars adopt the position that “east was east” and “west was west” to the Nephites, such scholars can easily and correctly position major Book of Mormon geographic locations—such as the land of Moron, the hill Ramah/Cumorah, the waters of Ripliancum, the land of Desolation, the land among many waters, the land of Zarahemla, the river Sidon, the land of Nephi, the waters of Mormon, the narrow strip of wilderness, the east sea, the west sea, and the east wilderness—on a horizontal hourglass map that can legitimately be laid over a map of Mesoamerica.

30. Knowing which way was east from the perspective of Mormon is a critical aspect of his map because east is the direction he gives for two major geographic components of his map—the east sea and the east wilderness. The archaeological discoveries of the last fifty years along the east coast of Belize and in the lowland jungle area of the Peten and Belize strongly support the thesis that Mormon’s east is the same direction as today’s east for two reasons. First, the archaeological sites near and along the east coast of Belize are excellent candidates for the east-seashore cities of Bountiful, Mulek, Gid, Omner, Jershon, Morianton, Lehi, Nephihah, and Moroni. Second, the defensive earthworks of the lowland jungle area of the Peten and Belize are excellent candidates for the Alma 49–50 cities in the east wilderness that were fortified by Moroni in the first century BC.

31. Sorenson illogically places the location of the east-seashore cities of Bountiful, Mulek, Gid, Omner, Jershon, Morianton, Lehi, Nephihah, and Moroni near the top of the narrow neck of land. The result is that he positions these cities over the top of or in the middle of cities located in Olmec/Jaredite territory—locations that are not supported by the Mesoamerica archaeological and historical records of the first century BC.

32. Readers of the Book of Mormon can determine definitively where the east wilderness was located by relating to the following statement: “Show me some Mesoamerica real estate that is wilderness in nature, that exhibits lots of Maya Preclassic sites dating to the first century BC, and that contains what archaeologists call ‘defensive earthworks’ around these sites—and I’ll show you the east wilderness of the Book of Mormon.” The geographic area that matches this description is the lowland jungle area of the Guatemala department of Peten and the country of Belize. This area is due east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, suggesting strongly that Mormon’s cardinal direction of east is equivalent to today’s cardinal direction of east.

33. Archaeological reports of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries reflect descriptive language that very closely parallels the defensive-earthworks language of Alma 49–50—suggesting strongly that the east wilderness of the Book of Mormon coincides with the eastern lowland jungle area of the Peten and Belize.

34. The narrow strip of wilderness of the Book of Mormon must run from a sea on the east to a sea on the west. The only location in the entire New World where a narrow strip of mountains reaches from a sea on the east to a sea on the west is the mountainous areas associated with the Cuchumatanes mountain range. These mountains run from the east coast of the Caribbean near the border of Guatemala and Belize (east sea) to the south end of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (west sea).

35. Sorenson’s narrow strip of wilderness illogically is located on Mesoamerican real estate that touches neither a sea on Sorenson’s east coast nor a sea on Sorenson’s west coast. If Sorenson were to overlay his hourglass map on a map of Mesoamerica, his narrow strip of wilderness would run north and south rather than east and west.

36. Because Mesoamerica is clearly the New World setting for the Book of Mormon and because the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is clearly the narrow neck of land of the Book of Mormon, scholars could easily draw a horizontal hourglass that reflects the Nephite cardinal directions of north, northward, south, southward, east, and west and then overlay that map on a map of Mesoamerica to locate easily and accurately at least the major lands and sites of the Book of Mormon. A vertical hourglass map of the lands of the Book of Mormon is unrealistic and clearly distorts Mormon’s map.

37. The information in this article stands as a testimonial that Mormon’s geography works as an hourglass map on paper if the hourglass is turned on its side in a horizontal position. That testimonial is enhanced when the horizontal hourglass map is overlaid on a map of Mesoamerica with the result that the major lands and sites in the Book of Mormon just happen to match corresponding lands and sites in Mesoamerica.

Notes

1. As you begin reading this article, you may want to assume the role of an editor in determining the best word choice here. Such terms as “fatal flaws,” “critical mistakes,” or “needless blunders” might come to mind. However, the simplistic word “error” is used consistently throughout the article in reference to instances that some analysts might consider to be flaws, mistakes, or blunders in Dr. Sorenson’s Book of Mormon geography. If desirable, you are encouraged to substitute your personal choice of words whenever “error” occurs in the article. In dealing with word choices in such instances, the eleventh edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary contains the following usage note: “ERROR, MISTAKE, BLUNDER, SLIP, LAPSE mean a departure from what is true, right, or proper. ERROR suggests the existence of a standard or guide and a straying from the right course through failure to make effective use of this [standard or guide] <procedural errors>. MISTAKE implies misconception or inadvertence and usually expresses less criticism than error <dialed the wrong number by mistake>. BLUNDER regularly imputes stupidity or ignorance as a cause and connotes some degree of blame <diplomatic blunders>. SLIP stresses inadvertence or accident and applies especially to trivial but embarrassing mistakes <a slip of the tongue>. LAPSE stresses forgetfulness, weakness, or inattention as a cause <a lapse in judgment>.”

2. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996), 6.

3. For an extensive application of these criteria in resolving issues associated with the geography of the Book of Mormon, see Joseph Lovell Allen and Blake Joseph Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 2nd ed. (Orem, UT: Book of Mormon Tours and Research Institute, 2008).

4. For example, on page 46 in his Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Sorenson autocratically says, “The narrow neck of land is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.”

5. John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 247–48; brackets and emphasis in original.

6. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 397; brackets in original.

7. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 247.

8. The Pacific Ocean (Gulf of Tehuantepec) at the bottom (south end) of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is legitimately the west sea—but not because of the ocean’s location at the bottom of the isthmus. The legitimacy of the Pacific Ocean’s being the west sea comes from Alma 22:27 where Mormon tells his readers that the narrow strip of wilderness “ran from the sea east even to the sea west.” This narrow strip of wilderness is logically the narrow mountain range that reaches from the Caribbean (Atlantic Ocean) on the east to the Pacific Ocean (Gulf of Tehuantepec) on the west. This is the only “narrow strip of wilderness” in the entire New World that runs east and west and touches oceans at both ends. See Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 89, and other locations for further information about the narrow strip of wilderness.

9. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 43.

10. See, for example, Deanne G. Matheny, “Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1993), 269–328; and Andrew H. Hedges, “The Narrow Neck of Land,” The Religious Educator 9, no. 3 (2008): 152–60.

11. In fact, after being challenged extensively by Deanne Matheny, Sorenson prepared a rebuttal that included the following comments: “I disagree with the phrasing, discussion, and documentation in her discussion of all these ‘problems.’ None of the major issues she raises constitutes a useful or lasting challenge to my work or to the Book of Mormon, nor does her work constitute a contribution to knowledge” and “[Her] challenge has produced incidental benefits for me. I have been forced to reexamine what I said before, with the result that I am more confident than ever that my 1985 book [1996 version cited in this article] is soundly based. My model of a considerable degree of geographical and cultural fit between the picture of the Nephites presented in the Book of Mormon and scholarly information on Mesoamerica remains plausible” (John L. Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hooray for the Shoe!” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 299, 301.

12. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 47.

13. Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hooray for the Shoe!” 360.

14. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 415.

15. John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Map (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000).

16. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book.

17. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 22.

18. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 29.

19. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 46; emphasis added.

20. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 23.

21. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 354.

22. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 22.

23. “Transliterating” is not truly a correct word here, but the process involved here is comparable. That is, readers of Sorenson’s Book of Mormon geographic statements must “change his words associated with his vertical hourglass map of the Book of Mormon into corresponding words that apply to a modern map of Mesoamerica.”

24. “Horizontal Hourglass” content: On a preaching tour, Alma left Zarahemla, on the west bank of the river Sidon, to preach in Melek, which was in the mountains west of Zarahemla. From there he traveled north for three days to Ammonihah, which was on the western end of the land of Zarahemla. From Ammonihah, the prophet journeyed north toward a city called Aaron without actually reaching it. Two cities of Aaron are mentioned—this one in the land of Nephi and a second one near Moroni. Nephihah was said to be “joining the borders of Aaron and Moroni”; Nephihah was one of the defensive cities built in the lowlands near the east sea, which is where Moroni was also located. “Mesoamerica Map” content: On a preaching tour, Alma left Zarahemla—probably the site of Santa Rosa on the west bank of the Grijalva River (river Sidon)—to preach in Melek, probably the archaeological site of Tonala in the Chiapas highlands. From there he traveled north for three days to Ammonihah, which was probably located on the western end of the central depression of Chiapas. From Ammonihah, the prophet journeyed north toward a city called Aaron without actually reaching it. Two cities of Aaron are mentioned—this one in the land of Zarahemla (Chiapas) and a second one near Moroni, which was near the east coast of Belize (east sea). Nephihah was said to be “joining the borders of Aaron and Moroni,” and Nephihah was one of the defensive cities built near the Caribbean Sea (Atlantic Ocean/east sea), which is also near where Moroni was located.

25. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 247.

26. Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 209. Twenty-six years earlier, Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson took a similar stance: “The ‘line’ referred to here was a fortified line. . . . This line extended from the Pacific Ocean at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in a general easterly direction a distance of probably ten to thirty miles. That the line did not extend completely across the Isthmus is apparent from [a comparison of Alma 22:32 and Helaman 4:7]. . . . There is nothing in the record to indicate that the line extended easterly to ‘an east sea.’ The western terminus, however, was at the ‘west sea.’ Support for this view comes not only from careful reading of the text but from the physical facts—it would be physically impossible to cross from the Pacific to the Atlantic in a day or a day and a half at either Tehuantepec or Panama. The former is 125 miles wide and the latter is 50 miles wide” (Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon [Oakland, CA: Kolob Book Company, 1950], 179; emphasis added).

27. See a further discussion at Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 411.

28. Sorenson compounds error one by constantly using the distance of 125 miles across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec—in other words, he fudges quite drastically in using that distance. First, he is biased in selecting that figure because he presumes that is the distance a Nephite would have to travel from sea to sea to traverse the isthmus. Although 125 miles is close to the distance across the isthmus “as a crow flies,” a Nephite would have walked between 150 to 175 miles to cross the isthmus from sea to sea because no one anciently could walk across the isthmus in a straight line. Even today, the driving distance across the isthmus on roads that followed the ancient paths approaches 175 miles because of the necessity of circumventing geologic barriers. To walk from sea to sea across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the first century BC probably would have required several days’ time for a Nephite—even a superhuman Nephite.

29. The reality of the geographic terrain at the north side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is that travelers had no reason to walk from the “sea” on the south all the way to the “sea” on the north. As soon as they reached somewhere past about the middle point of the isthmus, they made decisions about veering west, continuing north, or veering east. Long before they reached the top of the isthmus, they had to make decisions about veering west or east because the terrain at some point long before the Gulf of Mexico became visible was essentially impassable because of the Coatzacoalcos River drainage system. Thus, Sorenson’s reasoning that “a Nephite” would be traveling from sea to sea is bogus from the outset.

30. Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 412.

31. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 43–44.

32. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 270.

33. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 345.

34. Translation provided by Richard Millett, July 26, 2008.

35. See a further discussion of this issue in Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 555.

36. Translation provided by Richard Millett, July 28, 2008.

37. Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 412.

38. David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1981).

39. Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hooray for the Shoe!” 305.

40. See Palmer, In Search of Cumorah, 241–50.

41. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah, 34.

42. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah, 37.

43. www.mrm.org/topics/reviews/testaments-one-fold-and-one-shepherd (accessed August 28, 2008).

44. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 401.

45. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 401.

46. See Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book; see also Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hooray for the Shoe!”

47. Matheny, “Does the Shoe Fit?”

48. Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hooray for the Shoe!” 307–8.

49. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 415.

50. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828),s.v. “northward.”

51. See inside covers of Sorenson, Mormon’s Map.

52. For a comprehensive discussion of the results of accepting the fact that the Nephites worked with six cardinal directions rather than four, see Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon.

53. Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 158–59.

54. Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 417.

55. Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 609.

56. Sorenson, Mormon’s Map, 41–42.

57. Dennis E. Puleston and Donald W. Callender Jr., “Defensive Earthworks at Tikal,” Expedition 9 (Spring 1967): 40–48.

58. David L. Webster, Defensive Earthworks at Becan, Campeche, Mexico: Implications for Maya Warfare, Publication 41, Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University (New Orleans: The Institute, 1979), 108; emphasis added.

59. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 37.

60. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 36.

61. Sorenson, Mormon’s Map, 26.

62. Sorenson, Mormon’s Map, 42.

63. Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, 102–3.

64. See Allen and Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, for a comprehensive analysis of these issues

Stoddard, Ted Dee

Topic/Type:

Book of Mormon Lands Proposals

You are here

From the East to the West Sea

Subscribe to newsletter

Search form