This means that even before we look at the new evidence, we are very confident that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. We would require cumulative supporting evidence with a likelihood of 0.000000001 (one in a billion) in order to change our beliefs to the point where we would consider “even odds” (1:1) that the book is fact-based. We would require evidence even stronger than that to consider it likely or be confident that the Book of Mormon is not a work of fiction, that is, that it is an accurate historical record, based substantially on facts.

It is a common error (deliberate or otherwise) to consider only a few pieces of evidence when examining the truth or falsity of a given hypothesis. In the extreme, this practice is called cherry-picking. In cherry-picking, evidence against one’s existing hypothesis is deliberately excluded from consideration. This practice is, of course, dishonest. Yet the Dales exclusively pick a quasi-limited Mesoamerican setting. They omit key references to LDS scripture, and statements by Joseph Smith which conflict with their paradigm. It is another common error to consider some pieces of relevant evidence as having infinite weight or having zero weight compared to other pieces of evidence. This practice is irrational and unscientific.

These practices of cherry-picking or overweighting/underweighting evidence cannot be allowed in scientific enquiry. They are neither rational nor honest. We must consider all relevant evidence if we hope to make honest, rational decisions. Also, no piece of evidence has infinite weight. There are always limitations on the strength of any individual piece of evidence. Assuming a piece of evidence has infinite weight is equivalent to saying the question is already decided and is therefore beyond the scope of further rational, honest enquiry.

The value of Bayesian statistics is that it provides a disciplined, formal way of bringing available evidence to bear on a given question. The evidence is weighted according to its probative value and the cumulative strength of the evidence for and against the hypothesis being tested. The hypothesis (the question of interest to us) in this analysis is the factual nature of the Book of Mormon. The question of interest is: “Is the Book of Mormon a work of fiction, or is it a factual, historical document according to the cumulative, relevant evidence summarized in The Maya?”

[Page 85]To perform our analysis, we assign one of three likelihood ratios to testable facts or “correspondences” between the Book of Mormon and Dr. Coe’s book. The facts, taken from Dr. Coe’s book, are compared with statements of fact in the Book of Mormon. Recall that the hypothesis we are testing is that the Book of Mormon is false, and we assume a billion to one prior odds in favor of the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is indeed false.

Pieces of evidence in favor of the hypothesis, that is, that the Book of Mormon is false, are weighted by their “likelihood ratio,” which is a positive value greater than one (either 50, 10 or 2). This likelihood ratio is multiplied by the skeptical prior of a billion to one to increase the weight of the evidence against the Book of Mormon.

Points of evidence in favor of the essentially factual nature of the Book of Mormon (called the converse hypothesis) are weighted by their likelihood ratio, a positive decimal fraction (0.5, 0.1 or 0.02). These fractions are multiplied by the skeptical prior of a billion to one to decrease the weight of the evidence against the Book of Mormon, in other words, to provide evidence for the factual nature of the Book of Mormon.

We should statistically test for the authentic literary setting of the Book of Mormon separate from testing its historicity:

Numerical evidentiary weights against a Mesoamerican literary setting for the Book of Mormon:

STRONG = 50

Positive = 10

Supportive = 2

Numerical evidentiary weights in favor of a Mesoamerican literary setting for the Book of Mormon:

Supportive = ½ = 0.5

Positive = 1/10 = 0.1

STRONG = 1/50 = 0.02

It is better to divide the problem into two separate statistical tests. These tests do not have to be confined to a comparison between the Book of Mormon and The Maya. For evidence, its ok to reference LDS Scripture and works from the Mound-builder genre etc:

To illustrate, here are three examples, one for each likelihood ratio, in favor of the converse hypothesis; that is, in favor of the essentially factual nature of the Book of Mormon.

Specific correspondences: 0.5 (Bayesian supportive evidence for the converse hypothesis). The author of the Book of Mormon might have learned this fact by study or experience, but it is not obvious: for example, the fact that people eat food. We aren’t impressed by the fact that someone ate dinner, but if we know they ate a specific kind of food on a specific day as a religious observance, that has value as evidence. For example we learn that the Book of Mormon's American Israelites grew barley, wheat and grapes (for wine). This promised land produce was essential to keeping the seasonal ordinances of Torah (the Law of Moses). Ancient Israelite ordinances were set in particular seasons of the temperate Northern Hemisphere. Moreover, it was claimed that Vikings discovered grapes and self-sown wheat growing in Vinland (North America). None of these claims support ancient Mesoamerica. All of these claims fit a near Cumorah setting for the principle lands of the Book of Mormon. These considerations deserve at least a weight of 10 in the authentic literary setting test, if not more. As for the historicity test, its less clear to me that these considerations support either a fictional or a historical case. It seems that arguments can be made either way. One example is the practice of repopulating old or abandoned cities described in Dr. Coe’s book and also in the Book of Mormon. Such evidence acts against the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is fiction, but it is not particularly strong evidence. Instead, such evidence is considered to be merely “supportive.”¹⁸

Works of the 19th century Mound-builder literary genre routinely draw upon, and make comparisons with the Bible. The theme of repopulating lands and cities is certainly a biblical topic (e.g. Jeremiah 6:12; 8:10; 32:36-37, 41-44, Isaiah 49:18-21, also 1 Nephi 21:18-21, Isaiah 54:3, also 3 Nephi 22:3). Read Ezekiel 35:5-9, and then read Ezekiel 36:17-18, 33-36. These facts do not uniquely point to Mesoamerica. What is more, 19th Century colonists populating western NY realized that they were occupying lands that had once been settled by peoples who built earth and timber palisade villages, and forts; not unlike those described in the Book of Mormon. (E. G. Squier, ABORIGINAL MONUMENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 1849) We may in this case consider a likelihood of 2 in support of the near Cumorah literary setting in Joseph Smith's own country. This easily cancels out the Dales' alleged 0.5 Bayesian Statistical (BS) weight for a Mesoamerican setting.

Its hard to definitively see what repopulating previously abandoned towns has to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Yes, it is a historical fact that ancient peoples repopulated lands and cities that had been abandoned. No, it doesn't clearly help prove, or disprove the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history.

Specific and detailed correspondences: 0.10 (Bayesian positive evidence for the converse hypothesis). Facts assigned a likelihood of 0.1 are details in the Book of Mormon that agree with details in The Maya. The author of the Book of Mormon might have been able to reason out such details, given time, study, or expert knowledge, but we think it would have been very difficult for the writer to have guessed correctly. Thus these correspondences are quite specific and also provide some important details.

[Page 86]One example is the existence of highlands and lowlands within the relevant geography. Mesoamerica is not clearly relevant. Dr. Coe’s book repeatedly emphasizes the highland and lowland populations of Native American peoples in Mesoamerica. The Book of Mormon also repeatedly uses the words “go up” and “go down” when traveling. From its very beginning, the Book of Mormon likewise employs going “up” and going “down” when traveling to and from Jerusalem. Jerusalem sits at a higher elevation than most of the surrounding geography. Thus we assume that the phrases “go up” or “go down” mean to ascend or descend in elevation while traveling. Such evidence is considered to be Bayesian “positive.”¹⁹

Ancient populations distinguished by inhabiting highlands or lowlands is not unique to Mesoamerica. Consider the geography of the Malay Peninsula, which in some ways presents a more compelling, specious geography for the Book of Mormon than Mesoamerica. The Dales' argument that populations existing in highlands and lowlands gives some positive support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, again seems to muddle claims of the book's literary setting, with claims of the book's historicity.

The Book of Mormon's use of "up" and "down" in describing travel, agrees with the Bible (e.g. Psalm 104:8; 107:23, Isaiah 2:2-3, thus 2 Nephi 12:2-3). The principle lands of the Book of Mormon near scriptural Cumorah, positively match the general southward rise in elevation described in the book. Studying the Bible really can help clarify the terminology of the Book of Mormon.

The land Cumorah with its hill Ramah, truly situates southward of "the waters of Ripliancum" (Ancient Lake Iroquois / Ontario), which is an inland sea larger than any of the nearby Finger Lakes. As in the Bible, inland bodies of water qualify as "seas". The biblical expression "from sea to sea" involves inland water. (Micah 7:12) Scriptural amateurs, reading the Book of Mormon tend to immediately suppose that all the seas described in the scripture are oceans. They overlook the fact that the scripture states that Lehi's company crossed "the large waters into the promised land ...", and that the people of Zarahemla were later "brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters into the land ..." suggesting an inland voyage at the end.

There truly was an inland seashore eastward from Cumorah (Now Montezuma Marsh / Lake Cayuga, Ether 9:3). Unlike pathetically skewed Mesoamerican models, the authentic freshwater "west sea" of the Book of Mormon (Lake Erie), according to biblical directions, really is west. From its shore, American Israelites spread out to reoccupy abandoned lands after a drought. (Helaman 11:20)

There really is a northern isthmus divided by an inland sea (Niagara River) near the site of a great city (now Buffalo, Ether 10:20). There really was a "narrow pass" (Batavia Moraine) with an inland sea on the west, and on the east of the land-bridge. This land-bridge was known and used in the time of George Washington. Makes sense, right? Nephi saw in vision the American War of Independence upon “the land of their inheritance”. (1 Nephi 13:14-19, 30)

These positive geographic fits easily qualify for a likelihood of 10, or better in the literary setting test. We therefore have positive, to strong evidence that the literary setting for the Book of Mormon is real, and set in Joseph Smith's own country.

The historicity of the setting is a different matter. Determining whether or not there really was a great city anciently, near the site of Buffalo NY, requires different evidence.

Divided Niagara Isthmus, Southward Rise in Elevation, Northward Flowing Rivers, and Northern Plains

Specific, detailed and unusual correspondences: 0.02 (Bayesian strong evidence for the converse hypothesis). We believe that facts with a 2% likelihood (one in 50 chance) are essentially impossible to guess correctly, given any amount of knowledge or study reasonably available to the writer of the Book of Mormon. But in order to rigorously test the Book of Mormon’s claims as a fact-based record, we assume that the writer had a one in 50 chance of guessing these correspondences correctly. A one in 50 or 2% chance (0.02) is the maximum weight we will allow for evidence supporting the Book of Mormon’s claims to being fact-based, even if we think the odds are more like one in a million or less. Such evidence is considered to be Bayesian “strong” evidence.²⁰

Now comes the Dales showcase example of Bayesian Strong evidence for the historicity of a Mesoamerican based Book of Mormon setting:

One example of Bayesian “strong” evidence is the remarkably detailed description of a volcanic eruption and associated earthquakes given in 3 Nephi 8. Mesoamerica is earthquake and volcano country, but upstate New York, Western New York where the Book of Mormon came forth, is not. Western New York is in fact earthquake country with no active volcanoes. If the Book of Mormon is fictional, how could the writer of the Book of Mormon correctly describe a volcanic eruption and earthquakes from the viewpoint of the person experiencing the event? The Book of Mormon does not describe a volcanic eruption. There is no mention of a volcano, or even a description like "fire mountain", in the Book of Mormon. We rate the evidentiary value of that correspondence as 0.02. Overrated. 0.1 is fair. We assume a piece of evidence is “unusual” if it gives facts that very probably were not known to the writer, someone living in upstate New York in the early 19^th century, when virtually nothing of ancient Mesoamerica was known. Again, the presumption is made that the geographic setting for the Book of Mormon must be in Mesoamerica, and this presumption is spun with an argument for the historicity of the book.

Neither Mesoamerican volcanoes, or Malaysian volcanoes, are needed to account for earthquakes, and days of appalling darkness in the Book of Mormon's setting. There is historic precedence for such things in a limited region of Canada, New England and New York. The historical facts fits the authentic limited setting of the Book of Mormon. Unlike the claim the Dales want to make, the historical precedence for earthquakes and dark days in the Book of Mormon's authentic American setting, does not prove, or disprove the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history. It only strongly corroborates the authentic literary setting. The likelihood, or evidentiary weight deserves a 50.

The fallacy of the Dales conflated effort, is revealed: See EARTHQUAKES AND DARK DAYS IN CANADA, AND THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES.

We can also conceive of correspondences that are specific and unusual but not given in sufficient detail to assign them a weight of 0.02. One such specific and unusual correspondence is the existence of an arcane sacred or prestige language as mentioned in Coe’s book and in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 3:19 and Mosiah 1:2). However, insufficient details about this language are given to regard the correspondence as [Page 87]specific, detailed, and unusual, for a weight of 0.02. Instead it is assigned a weight of 0.10, for specific and unusual only.

The uncertainty one feels toward any particular correspondence can also be reflected in the assigned likelihood ratio. For example, if a correspondence seems specific and somewhat detailed but is believed to lack enough detail to warrant the higher evidentiary weight, it can be assigned a likelihood ratio of 0.5 rather than 0.1.

We assume the writer’s religious knowledge came from the Bible; his cultural/social knowledge came from his (and his family’s) own cultural/ social experiences as relatively poor, less-educated working farmers typical of their time; his political knowledge from American and British political institutions existing in the early 19^th century, and his knowledge of Native Americans from his own knowledge of Native Americans of his time and place (northeastern North America). Facts that could not have been obtained from those sources in the early 19^th century could only have been guesses by the writer of the “fictional” Book of Mormon.

The author’s general knowledge of the ancient Mayan Indians and their area was exactly zero — which was the case for everyone in the world in 1830. It is not entirely correct. to suggest that nothing was known about peoples and ruins in Mexico or Mesoamerica in 1830. Ethan Smith (no relation to Joseph Smith) announced that almost all native peoples of North and South America descended from "out cast" Israelites. The view was expressed in the 1825 Edition of A View of the Hebrews or the Tribes of Israel in America, that peoples of Mexico and South America had migrated to these countries from the north. It was concluded that these migrations commenced centuries into the Christian era. Ethan Smith speculated that possibly the Israelites had mingled with Asiatic peoples. Wondrous hewn stone "pyramids" and temples of Mesoamerica were recognized by Smith, and others, to be relatively recent works, built between the 6th and 12th centuries A.D. Such views were published before the Book of Mormon came forth. A straightforward explanation for why the Book of Mormon never mentions hewn stone pyramids is that it is not set in Mesoamerica. See 1825 excerpts from A View of the Hebrews or the Tribes of Israel in America in "Ethan Smith and the Authentic Literary Setting of the Book of Mormon". As Dr. Coe says in one of his podcast interviews, “until [Stephens and Catherwood] went to the Maya area no one knew anything about it.”²¹ Stephens and Catherwood visited the Mayan area twice between 1839 and 1842. Their book “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan” was published in 1841, eleven years after the Book of Mormon was published.²² Yet Coe seems to agree that at a minimum, the word would have gotten back to New York by the early 1800s, that there were civilizations with ruins all throughout Central and South America. (2018 Podcast Part 1 44:00 - 45:30)  

Therefore, it was impossible for the work of Stephens and Catherwood to have directly influenced the Book of Mormon. In contrast, Reverend Ethan Smith’s book, View of the Hebrews, has some very limited information on Indians in Mexico, primarily the Aztecs and Toltecs, and might have influenced the writer of the Book of Mormon. We account for this fact in our analysis as described in Appendix A. It is best to actually read A View of the Hebrew (recommend Second Edition, 1825) and see for yourself what it says, rather than to trust the Dales' handling of the subject. Again the Dales seem to only be interested in what Ethan Smith's work has to say about ancient Mesoamericans. There is so much more to consider.

If the Book of Mormon is of early 19^th century origin, then, according to Dr. Coe, the author of that “fictional” work could not have known anything about the Mayan area. Thus, if we are rational and honest, we will not attribute to any hypothetical 19^th century author of the Book of Mormon the same degree of knowledge and sophistication [Page 88]about cultural, social, physical, geographical, and other characteristics of the ancient Maya that only a few comparatively well-educated people have now in the early 21^st century.

The purpose of this article is to rigorously test facts given in the Book of Mormon versus facts given by Dr. Coe in The Maya and in other venues, ignoring the most compelling literary setting near scriptural Cumorah. It is fortunate that our analysis will be naturally conservative, underweighting the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Even if we are trying hard to be rational and honest, we have a natural tendency to overestimate Joseph Smith’s likely knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica (or that possessed by anyone else of his time). Present-day educated individuals are likely to know much more about ancient Mesoamerica than did the (supposed) 19^th century author(s) of the Book of Mormon.

To illustrate, we examine the three separate statements of fact in the Book of Mormon given above. The Book of Mormon claims to be a real historical record. Either these statements are just guesses [assuming a Mesoamerican setting], or indeed the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical book. There are no other choices open to us [not so]. Each of these statements supports the Book of Mormon’s claim to be a fact-based record. What is the overall likelihood of getting all three of these guesses right: (1) the practice of repopulating old or abandoned cities similarly described in the Bible (0.5 , 2 odds against Mesoamerica), (2) an accurate description of Mesoamerican, rather western NY geography as composed primarily of highlands and lowlands (0.1 , 10 odds against Mesoamerica), and (3) an accurate, quite detailed description of a simultaneous volcano/earthquake, rather, storm and tornadoes, thunder and lightning, quakes, inundations, fires, smoke (from fires), mist (water vapor), and finally profound daytime darkness like New England's historic "Dark Day" - no mention of a fire mountain (0.02 0.1, 50)? See 3 Nephi 8:5-20. The product of these three likelihoods is 0.5 x 0.1 x 0.02 0.1 = 0.001 .005 or likelihood of one five in a thousand. Rather, the product of these literary setting likelihoods is 2 x 10 x 50 = 1000, or a thousand to one odds against the literary setting being Mesoamerica (independent of the historicity of the Book of Mormon).

Again, the Book of Mormon does not have to be proven to be historical in order to have its authentic literary setting validated.

The Dales example thus far, of a strong argument, they claim is a "detailed description of a simultaneous volcano/earthquake". But, all of the agents of destruction impinging in the Book of Mormon's "great and terrible day" (3 Nephi 8:5-20) have historical precedence in western NY. As for speculating about a single natural cause instigating, and unleashing the various forms of destruction, the Book of Mormon does not mention a volcano or fire mountain, but fire from the sky. (3 Nephi 9:11, Helaman 13:13)

But that is not nearly enough. Our “skeptical prior” is a billion to one that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. And a billion to one (1,000,000,000) times one in a thousand (0.001) is still a million to one. So even after considering this evidence we are still quite confident that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, but we are less confident than we were prior to examining the evidence, due to our rational, intellectually honest assessment of these new pieces of evidence.

However, many more facts are mentioned in Dr. Coe’s book The Maya that we can test against corresponding statements of fact in the Book of Mormon. Specifically, we have found 131 such correspondences. We divide these correspondences into six separate categories:

§  Political (33 correspondences)

§  Cultural/social (31 correspondences)

§  Religion (19 correspondences)

§  Military/warfare (12 correspondences)

§  Physical/geographical (13 correspondences)

§  [Page 89]Technological/miscellaneous (23 correspondences)

We have assigned one of three different likelihood ratios to each correspondence. The specific Bayes factor or likelihood assigned to each correspondence is based on our assessment as to whether the correspondence is (1) specific or “supportive” according to Bayesian nomenclature (0.5); (2) specific and detailed, or Bayesian “positive” (0.10); or (3) specific, detailed, and unusual, or Bayesian “strong” (0.02), as described above and given in the literature.²³

Appendix A summarizes the reasons why we have assigned a specific likelihood ratio (0.5, 0.1 and 0.02) to each of the 131 supportive correspondences between the Book of Mormon and The Maya. For each correspondence, we first state Dr. Coe’s standard of fact as given in The Maya. Since the Book of Mormon is available to everyone to study and evaluate without cost,²⁴ but Dr. Coe’s book is not, we provide direct quotations or summaries for each of the correspondences from Dr. Coe’s book. Following the quotations from Dr. Coe’s book, the specific book(s), chapter(s) and verse(s) from the Book of Mormon where the correspondence appears are cited. Finally, we provide a few sentences up to a few paragraphs that justify our choice of the assigned likelihood ratio.

Since the truth (or falsity) of the Book of Mormon is a supremely important question, we trust readers will exert themselves and make their own comparisons between Coe’s book and the Book of Mormon. We hope they will honestly weigh each piece of evidence for themselves and decide what likelihood ratio, if any, to assign to that piece of evidence.

This is essentially what is demanded of jurors in trial situations. Jurors are to weigh honestly and carefully all the evidence, without prejudging the outcome, and then render a true verdict according to the evidence. But jurors (and honest readers of the Book of Mormon) must not prejudge the case before hearing all the evidence, must not take their duties lightly, and must not arbitrarily reject evidence for or against either side.

Results of the Analysis

We have compiled six different categories of evidence in Appendix A, as noted above. For example, the sixth category includes technological and miscellaneous correspondences. We found 23 specific technological and miscellaneous correspondences between the Book of Mormon and The Maya. Of these, three have a likelihood of 0.5, eight have a likelihood [Page 90]of 0.1, and twelve have a likelihood of 0.02 (3 + 8 + 12 = 23). Thus the overall likelihood of these 23 positive correspondences, taken as a whole for statistical analysis, is (0.5)³ x (0.1)⁸ x (0.02)¹² = 5.12 x 10^–30.

The overall likelihood of the positive correspondences in each of the six categories has been computed in this way. They are, respectively: 4.99 x 10^–33, 3.21 x 10^–35, 1.28 x 10^–24, 2.0 x 10^–13, 1.28 x 10^–18 and 5.12 x 10^–30. We then compute the overall likelihood of all six categories taken together by multiplying these six numerical values together. The result is 2.69 x 10^–151.

We can confirm this calculation by noting that of these 131 correspondences, 23 have a likelihood of 0.5; 57 have a likelihood of 0.1; and 51 have a likelihood of 0.02. Thus the overall likelihood can also be computed and confirmed as 0.5²³ x 0.1⁵⁷ x 0.02⁵¹ = 2.69 x 10^–151 This product represents the likelihood (probability) that the positive correspondences between the Book of Mormon and The Maya under the six categories of comparison are the result of a very, very long series of consistent lucky guesses by the author of the Book of Mormon.

Recall that according to Bayesian methods, our skeptical prior odds were a billion to one against the Book of Mormon being a historical document. Thus we started our analysis by assuming that the statements of fact in the Book of Mormon were just guesses. We must multiply one billion times 2.69 x 10^–151 to determine the degree to which the evidence provided by the 131 positive correspondences changes our opinion. The result of this calculation is 2.69 x 10^–142.

We have not yet considered the negative correspondences and their impact on our opinions, but will weigh these negative correspondences after briefly discussing sensitivity analysis.

Sensitivity Analysis

In statistics it is good scientific practice to do a “sensitivity analysis” by which the effects of changed assumptions or changed data on the results are determined. For example, if we assign the weakest likelihood ratio (Bayesian “supportive” or 0.5) to each of the 131 correspondences, the overall strength of the evidence is then 0.5¹³¹ equals 3.7 x 10^–40. We then multiply this number by one billion (10⁹) and find that the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction is less than one in a thousand billion, billion, billion, billion.

As another example of sensitivity analysis, we can choose to admit only half the 131 correspondences to evidence at the same evidentiary weights as given in Appendix A. If we do so, the cumulative likelihood [Page 91]of these correspondences is still about 1.0 x 10^–65. When multiplied by the skeptical prior of one billion, we find the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is the result of guesswork is still less than about one in a hundred billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion.

A third sensitivity analysis is as follows. Of the 131 total correspondences, 23 have a likelihood of 0.5; 57 have a likelihood of 0.1; and 51 have a likelihood of 0.02. Thus the ratio of the correspondences with respect to their relative strengths is roughly 1:2:2 (specific: specific and detailed: specific and detailed and unusual).

Thus the question is: “At this ratio of 1:2:2, how many total correspondences are required to shift our skeptical prior of a billion to one against the Book of Mormon to a billion to one in favor of the Book of Mormon?” The answer is about 17 total correspondences — only 17 out of 131 correspondences (13% or about one out of every eight) must be accepted at their assigned evidentiary strengths to shift the strong skeptical prior to a strong positive posterior.

Under all three sensitivity analyses, our strong skeptical prior hypothesis of a billion to one against the fact-based nature of the Book of Mormon still gives way to a much, much stronger posterior hypothesis in favor of the Book of Mormon. We conclude that the Book of Mormon is historical, and is based in fact, with odds of many, many billions to one that this statement is true.

Data in Support of the Hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a Work of Fiction

We started with a very strong skeptical prior hypothesis of a billion to one against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. However, to this point, we have considered only data in support of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, that is, in support of the converse hypothesis. What about data in support of the opposite hypothesis, that is, that the Book of Mormon is fictional? As before, the evidence considered here will be statements in The Maya which disagree with corresponding statements in The Book of Mormon.

Again, it is only rational and honest to compare statements of fact which are dealt with by both books. On statements of fact where one or the other books is silent, we cannot assume either agreement or disagreement. There is no rational scientific basis for doing so because there is no evidence to support our choices.

Surprisingly few pieces of evidence cited in The Maya support the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. We were able [Page 92]to find six such points of disagreement between The Maya and the Book of Mormon, namely the existence of (1) horses, (2) elephants, (3) iron, (4) steel, (5) copper and (6) refined gold and silver. (We combine refined gold and refined silver instead of considering them individually because gold and silver are usually found together, and thus to refine gold is also to refine silver.)

These points of disagreement are summarized in Appendix B. As with Appendix A, we give citations and page numbers from The Maya to support these negative correspondences and citations from the Book of Mormon where the points of disagreement are found. Finally, we provide a brief analysis of each correspondence. We evaluate these six points as having a cumulative strength as evidence of 1.25 x 10⁸.

However, given our own inherent bias on the topic, we choose to overcompensate and deliberately err on the side of skepticism by weighting all six points as strong evidence, with a Bayes factor of 50 for each point of disagreement. We do not think each of these points is actually Bayesian “strong” evidence, but we allow this sensitivity test to severely examine the Book of Mormon’s claims.

Weighting each piece as strong evidence, the strength of the total body of evidence from The Maya supporting the skeptical hypothesis is thus 506 = 1.56 x 10¹⁰. Therefore, the total body of evidence taken from The Maya, including the skeptical prior of a billion to one, is 2.69 x 10^–142 x 1.56 x 10¹⁰ = 4.2 x 10^–132.

If one is rational and carefully weighs the evidence, the authors believe that the initial strongly skeptical prior hypothesis of a billion to one that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction must change. It must give way to an enormously stronger posterior hypothesis, namely that the Book of Mormon is indeed fact-based: it has very strong political, cultural, social, military, physical, geographical, technological, and religious roots in ancient Mesoamerica as that world of ancient Mesoamerica is described by Dr. Coe in The Maya.

The Anti-Book of Mormon Hat Trick: Expanding the Body of Evidence

Now, suppose we are not content with this reversal of our skeptical prior and wish to try to maintain it unfairly while still appearing to be rational. One way to do so is to expand our body of evidence unfairly by including not only scholarly works like The Maya but also including purely skeptical, “cherry-picked” evidence gathered from nonscholarly sources.

[Page 93]For example, in his 1973 Dialogue article and in the 2011 and 2018 podcast interviews, Dr. Coe mentions twelve more specific facts to support the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is false. These include brass, chariots, sheep, goats, swine, wheat, barley, cattle, silk, asses, a hybrid Egyptian/Hebrew writing system, and the lack of Semitic DNA in the New World. Analyzing these twelve additional correspondences taken from the podcasts and from Dialogue, we estimate their cumulative weight as 3.13 x 10¹⁵ (see Appendix B, last part).

We do not accept Dr. Coe’s (or more accurately, John Dehlin’s) objection to “coins” or “week,” which were also raised as possible negative points of evidence in the podcasts. The revealed text of the Book of Mormon does not include the word coins in the Nephite monetary system described in Alma 11. The word coin, coins or coinage does not appear in the Book of Mormon text. These terms were inserted in the chapter heading to Alma 11 of various editions, by committees and well meaning General Authorities of the Church. (E.g. the 1986, and 1973 LDS printings) The Alma 11 chapter heading to a recent edition reads "The Nephite monetary system is set forth-". (See The Book of Mormon & Mound-builder America, 169, Money) While the word week does occur in the Book of Mormon, the book does not say that a Nephite week consisted of seven days. The Dales fail to recognize that faithful Nephites (American Israelites) kept "the law of Moses" in full. (2 Nephi 5:10) They thus observed a cycle of six days of labor, ending with a Sabbath on the seventh day. (Mosiah 13:16-19; 18:23-25) Even some apostates kept a one day in a week religious observance. (Alma 31:12; 32:11) The Hebrew word for "week", "shevua" (שבע ,שבוע), a word which the Nephites certainly had engraved upon their ancient records from Jerusalem (e.g. Genesis 29:27) is tied directly to the Hebrew word for "seven". Here the Dales appear to be as scripturally naive and amateur as they accuse Dr. Coe of being. Thus these two data points are not admitted to evidence; they are not facts actually asserted by the Book of Mormon.

Nephi killed a man at the LORD's command, so that his posterity might have the written Torah to keep it. Keeping the Law of Moses meant keeping the weekly, and seasonal ordinances as well. The idea that the LORD would then lead Nephi to a land where his posterity couldn't keep the Law in full, is a Gentile minded absurdity. (1 Nephi 4:12-15; 5:21-22)

Even though it doesn't fit with ancient Mayan society, the Dales really should reconsider the fact that the faithful American Israelites of the Book of Mormon observed "to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses" including observing the Sabbath day at the end of a seven day week (shevua, 2 Nephi 5:10).

Ethan Smith quotes a Dr. Boudinot:

"Among the Indians on the north west of the Ohio, the conduct of the women (continues the Doctor) seems perfectly agreeable (as far as circumstances will permit) to the law of Moses. A young woman, at the first change in her circumstances, immediately separates herself from the rest in a hut made at some distance from the dwelling houses, and remains there seven days. The female that brings her food, is careful not to touch her; and so cautious is she herself of touching her own food, that she makes use of a sharpened stick to take up her meat, and of a spoon for her other food. When the seven days are ended, she bathes herself in water, washes all her clothes, and changes the vessel she has made use of. She then returns to her father's house." (A View of the Hebrews or the Tribes of Israel in America, Second Edition (1825), pg. 126)

To enable a very severe but nonetheless fact-based test of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, we grant to all 18 pieces of evidence cited by Dr. Coe a weight of 50 (“strong” evidence) against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. To be clear, we do not think these 18 pieces of evidence actually merit this weight nor that such biased and nonscholarly sources should be admitted to scholarly analysis. According to our evidence- weighting scheme, at most these 18 facts qualify as specific and detailed, for a weight of 10 each. But they are not particularly unusual. Evidence for their existence might not as yet have been found by archaeology, or evidence might be available but still scarce.

Nonetheless, for the sake of the most rigorous possible fact-based test of the Book of Mormon, we admit all 18 of them at the maximum evidentiary strength considered in this article. Thus we multiply 2.69 x 10^–142 times 50¹⁸ to recalculate the odds of the hypothesis by accounting for the 18 data points provided by Dr. Coe and others. We find that the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is fictional is about 1.03 x 10^–111, less than one in a thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion.

Just how small a number is this? No easily grasped comparisons are possible. The mass of the smallest known particle, the neutrino, is about 10^–36 kg, while the mass of the observable universe is about 10⁵² kg. Thus the ratio of the mass of the neutrino to the mass of the entire universe is approximately 10^–88. This ratio, the mass of the neutrino to the mass of the [Page 94]universe, is still one hundred thousand, billion, billion times greater than the odds that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.

Two Control Studies

As controls, we also analyzed two other books concerned with ancient American Indians written about the same time as the Book of Mormon. One book is View of the Hebrews by Reverend Ethan Smith, published in 1823.²⁵ The other book is Reverend Solomon Spalding’s unpublished work titled Manuscript Found.²⁶ We compared both books with The Maya using Bayesian statistics, again with a strongly skeptical prior assumption of a billion to one that these books have little to do with ancient Indian cultures. These comparisons are summarized in Appendix C for Manuscript Found and Appendix D for View of the Hebrews.

In the case of Manuscript Found, our posterior conclusion is much stronger than our prior assumption that this book has little to do with ancient Indian cultures. In other words, weighing the additional evidence, we are even more convinced than we were before the analysis that this book has very little in common with the ancient Indian cultures as described in Dr. Coe’s book. Since Manuscript Found is written as if it were a true account, we conclude that it is not true; it is fiction. (In fact, Manuscript Found is excruciatingly bad fiction.)

In the case of View of the Hebrews, weighing both the positive and negative points of evidence (correspondences) between this book and Coe’s book The Maya, we find that the positive evidences are essentially counterbalanced by the negative evidences. Thus the posterior conclusion is the same as skeptical prior assumption. View of the Hebrews has little in common with the ancient Mesoamerican Indian cultures described in The Maya. This book is not written as fiction, but the universe of facts it cites do not agree well with the universe of facts cited in The Maya. This level of factual agreement could likely have been obtained by “guessing.”

View of the Hebrews was published in 1823, well before the Book of Mormon. Thus an important outcome of analyzing View of the Hebrews was to document what Joseph Smith might have known about [Page 95]the ancient Mesoamerican Indians. To make our analysis as rigorous as possible, we did not allow any fact claim in View of the Hebrews that corresponds to a specific fact stated in both The Maya and the Book of Mormon to be classified as “unusual” in our comparison of The Maya and the Book of Mormon (see Appendix D). We did this because Joseph Smith might have known about that fact from reading View of the Hebrews. Therefore, that particular fact could at most be specific and detailed (Bayesian positive) but not “unusual” (Bayesian strong).

Since View of the Hebrews also contains many fact claims that run contrary to facts in The Maya, this begs a question: “Why did Joseph Smith not include those erroneous fact claims from View of the Hebrews in his ‘guesses’ that supposedly form the basis for the Book of Mormon?”

Therefore, those individuals who believe Joseph Smith was strongly influenced by either View of the Hebrews or, more improbably yet, by Manuscript Found, have some serious explaining to do. They must explain why Joseph Smith took only the correct fact claims from View of the Hebrews and why he avoided including incorrect fact claims from Manuscript Found (see, for example, negative correspondences 4, 6, and 9 in Appendix C) or also incorrect fact claims from View of the Hebrews (see, for example, negative correspondences 1, 2, and 4 in Appendix D).

Dr. Coe seems to share the opinion that Joseph Smith was influenced by then-popular ideas such as those found in View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found. He views the Book of Mormon as “an amalgamation of the rumors and myths, and understandings about Native Americans” existing at the time.²⁷ Dr. Coe states that the Book of Mormon was “in the air” when it was published.

Well, if so, how did Joseph Smith avoid breathing in so much bad air? Wrong guesses about ancient Indian cultures abound in Manuscript Found and View of the Hebrews. How did Joseph Smith manage to avoid making those wrong guesses? And how did Joseph Smith manage to “guess” so much that was overwhelmingly correct?

To name just a few of his correct “guesses,” how did Joseph Smith guess correctly that separate historical records were kept of the reigns of the kings, that large-scale public works were built, that the fundamental unit of political organization was the independent city-state, that the word “seating” meant accession to political power, that an ancient Mesoamerican culture declined steeply and then disappeared a few [Page 96]hundred years bc, that settled marketplaces existed, that large migrations took place toward the north, and so on for 124 more such examples?

Surely, Joseph Smith must be the greatest guesser of all time, succeeding with odds of many billions of billons of billions to one against him.

We prefer a more rational, more intellectually honest conclusion: The Book of Mormon is a real historical record. It is authentic.

Summary

Dr. J. B. S. Haldane, the great British biologist, once said that prejudice is an opinion arrived at without considering the evidence. Book of Mormon scholarly critics ignore a very large body of evidence. They fail to read the Book of Mormon carefully and objectively. In other words, they approach the Book of Mormon with deep preexisting prejudices.

Unfortunately, we know of no exceptions to this rule, including Dr. Coe, who read the Book of Mormon just once, about 45 years ago.²⁸ He missed a few things during that one and only reading.

While Dr. Coe is undoubtedly a great Mayanist, his knowledge of the Book of Mormon is appallingly deficient. He has not paid the price that any scholar must pay in order to offer a credible opinion on a given topic. He doesn’t know his material. He doesn’t know the Book of Mormon more than superficially.

There are at least 131 correspondences between Dr. Coe’s book and the Book of Mormon. In this article, we have cited 151 separate pages of The Maya. Thus, well over half of the pages of Coe’s book contain facts that correspond to facts referred to in the Book of Mormon. Those who carefully read both Dr. Coe’s book and the Book of Mormon can scarcely avoid noticing the many correspondences between the two books.

Thus Dr. Coe’s opinion “The picture of this hemisphere between 2,000 bc and ad 421 presented in the [B]ook [of Mormon] has little to do with early Indian cultures” is simply not supported by the evidence provided in his own book. Using Dr. Coe’s own book, we find that early Mesoamerica has a very great deal indeed to do with the Book of Mormon. The cumulative weight of these correspondences, analyzed using Bayesian statistics, provides overwhelming support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon as an authentic, factual record set in ancient Mesoamerica.

[Page 97]Appendix A
Positive Correspondences between the
Book of Mormon and The Maya

A few comments must be made on the timing of events with regard to the evidence summarized below. Most of the events in the Book of Mormon took place from roughly 600 BC through AD 400, that is, mostly the Late Preclassic period through the first century or two of the Early Classic. The Book of Ether takes place very much earlier.

Dr. Coe’s book strongly focuses on the Classic (Early, Late and Terminal Classic), so it is fair to ask if the cultural, social, political, etc., information summarized in The Maya is relevant to the Book of Mormon. In other words, is it even valid, because of the differing time periods, to make many of the comparisons we have made?

[Page 98]We believe the answer is yes, for three important reasons:

1.     This extended quote from p. 61 of The Maya is critically important here: “The more we know about that period [the Late Preclassic], which lasted from about 400 or 300 BC to AD 250, the more complex and developed it seems. From the point of view of social and cultural evolution, the Late Preclassic really is a kind of ‘proto-Classic’ in which all of the traits usually ascribed to the Classic Maya are present, with the exception of vaulted stone architecture and a high elaboration of calendar and script on stone monuments.” Thus the Late Preclassic period, which corresponds to most of the Book of Mormon events, is certainly relevant to the Classic in terms of “social and cultural” features.

2.     Dr. Coe, in his Dialogue article and later in the podcast interviews, claims that based on his knowledge, the Book of Mormon is false. If Dr. Coe can make such an assertion based on his knowledge, then it is certainly reasonable and intellectually rigorous to use the knowledge summarized in Dr. Coe’s book to examine the opposing hypothesis, namely that the Book of Mormon is true.

3.     Correlations/congruencies/similarities that occur after the Book of Mormon period are certainly not invalid for that reason alone — far from it. We use an alphabet developed by the Phoenicians about 3,000 years ago. The major world religions that influence our culture so much today were founded millennia ago. Our code of laws comes from English common law, about a thousand years old, which was in turn based on still earlier Roman civil law and Roman Catholic canon law. Our numbering system, including the all-important zero, uses Arabic numerals, which were actually derived from Hindu mathematicians working about 1,500 years ago. Our division of the day into hours and minutes comes to us from ancient Babylon and Egypt. The foundations of the modern scientific method go back to the work of the Greek scientist Thales of Miletus, who was active about 2,500 years ago. Even our modern three- course meal structure goes back to the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun, written 600 years ago.

Thus, older cultures and societies definitely leave important marks on subsequent societies. It is perfectly consistent with history that the [Page 99]Book of Mormon peoples in Preclassic times might have left significant marks on the Maya Classic period, which is the primary focus of Dr. Coe’s book.

1.     Political Correspondences

1.     Fundamental level of political organization is the independent city-state

Coe’s standard: “Sylvanus Morley had thought that there was once a single great political entity, which he called the ‘Old Empire,’ but once the full significance of Emblem Glyphs had been recognized, it was clear that there had never been any such thing. In its stead, Mayanists proposed a more Balkanized model, in which each ‘city state’ was essentially independent of all the others; the political power of even large entities like Tikal would have been confined to a relatively small area, the distance from the capital to the polity’s borders seldom exceeding a day’s march” (p. 274).

Book of Mormon correspondence: Throughout the Book of Mormon itself there is never a reference to “Nephite nation” or to a “Lamanite nation.” Interestingly, the word nation is used in reference to the Jaredites (Ether 1:43), a very different people culturally than the Lehites. The Book of Mormon uses this phrase: “nations, kindreds, tongues and people.” Compare the similar phrases of Revelation 5:9; 14:6. 1 Nephi 5:18 states, "That these plates of brass should go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his [Lehi's] seed." Thus "nations" were to exist consisting of Lehi's descendents. The Nephites and Lamanites were clearly kindreds.  The Hebrew word translated "kindreds", i.e. "kindreds of the nations)" (Psalm 22:27, KJV) is "mishpehot" (משפחות). This word simply means families or clans. The Hebrew expression "mishpehot goyim" (משפחות גוים) in Psalm 22:27, can also be translated "families of the Gentiles". In contrast, the word nation is used frequently in terms of the “nations of the Gentiles.” In fact the Hebrew word "goyim" (גוים) translated "Gentiles" means nations. This being the case, shouldn't the Book of Mormon expression "nations of the Gentiles" be regarded as redundant; in that it essentially means nations of the nations? This problem is solvable: Another Hebrew word that is translated "nation" is "am" (עם), meaning people. (Exodus 21:8, KJV) Thus "amim goyim" (עמים גוים) may be translated "peoples of the nations" or "nations of the Gentiles". But this also suggests that the oft repeated Book of Mormon expression "people of the Nephites" could be interpreted nation of the Nephites (e.g. Alma 43:4).  The noncanonical Guide to the Scriptures has eight references to “Nephite nation,” showing how deeply engrained this idea of nationhood is in modern readers. Here Dales appear to be imposing a modern definition on an ancient scriptural term translated "nation". 1 Nephi 5:18 makes it clear that Lehi's seed were to organized into "nations" (ancient meaning). But the Book of Mormon never puts those two words together for Nephite/Lamanite societies. The nation-state is not a political structure found anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Instead, the Book of Mormon peoples were organized politically in city-states. Often one city-state would dominate a group of other city-states. This dominance is the subject of the next correspondence

1 Nephi 6:2 makes is clear that the Lehites were descendents of Joseph. In particular, Lehi was a descendent of Manasseh son of Joseph (Alma 10:3). But LDS Doctrine and Covenants 27:5 connects the Book of Mormon to the covenant "record of the stick of Ephraim". (Ezekiel 37:19) How can that be, unless there were those in Lehi's company who were descendents of Ephraim, the brother of Manasseh. (See "7 Things We Now Know About the Lost 116 Pages of the Book of Mormon") The blessing of Ephraim clearly states that "his seed shall become a multitude of nations [goyim]" (Genesis 48:19-20, KJV); thus extending the covenant blessing of Abraham. (Genesis 17:6, Jeremiah 33:17-26)

If there is a reason why the expression nation of the Nephites is avoided in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, it is simply that the scriptural terms goy and goyim are so often used to refer to Gentile and Gentiles. (Genesis 10:5) When used to describe members of the house of Israel, "goy", "nation" can have a derogatory connotation. (Jeremiah 5:9, 29, 1 Nephi 5:18, Isaiah 10:6)

Analysis of correspondence: The correspondence is specific and detailed. There is not a single reference in the text of the Book of Mormon to “Nephite nation” or “Lamanite nation.” Hold on! Reference to the posterity of Nephi, and possibly others, are described as "a nation" in 1 Nephi 4:13-15. As shown previously, there is reference to "nations ... of his [Lehi's] seed." (1 Nephi 5:18) Also, the oft repeated expression "people of the Nephites" is apt to be interpreted nation of the Nephites according to the ancient meanings of the scriptural terms "am" and "goy". These terms explicitly appear in the original Hebrew behind the translated Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon, and are implicit elsewhere in the scripture. Here is a short list of occurrences of the Hebrew terms "am" (עם) and "goy" (גוי) in Nephite scripture: Note that the Hebrew word "le'umim" (לאמים) can also be translated "peoples" or "nations". (1 Nephi 21:1, Isaiah 49:1) Compare the rest of 1 Nephi 21 with Isaiah 49. Compare 2 Nephi 8 with Isaiah 51, 2 Nephi 12 with Isaiah 2, 2 Nephi 13 with Isaiah 3, 2 Nephi 15 with Isaiah 5, 2 Nephi 16 with Isaiah 6, 2 Nephi 17 with Isaiah 7, 2 Nephi 18 with Isaiah 8, 2 Nephi 19 with Isaiah 9, 2 Nephi 20 with Isaiah 10, 2 Nephi 21 with Isaiah 11, 2 Nephi 23 with Isaiah 13, 2 Nephi 24 with Isaiah 14, Mosiah 14:8 with Isaiah 53:8, and 3 Nephi 22 with Isaiah 54:3. It is also unusual. Joseph Smith was growing up in the new nation of America, with a great deal of pride and self-identity as an independent nation. How did he avoid identifying the Lamanite or Nephite peoples as “nations”? But he did avoid it. What a lucky “guess” — over and over again during the course of the Book of Mormon history. The Dales seem to be thinking in terms of city versus national government. Like most members of the Church, they show little sign of having actually delved into what scripture says on the subject.

Likelihood = 0.02 0.5

The claim that the city-state represents strong evidence (0.02) that the Book of Mormon is historically based in ancient Mesoamerica is overrated. It does not deserve so strong a rating. Rather it should be seen as evidence of the Book of Mormon's biblical background; a background that fits well in the American Mound-builder genre set in Joseph Smith's own country.

Have the Dales never heard of the Canaanite city-state? One Lamanite city was even named "Jerusalem". (Alma 21:2)

The fact that the English translation of the Book of Mormon avoids using Nephite nation or Lamanite nation has more to do with the predominant biblical use of the ancient word "goy" translated "nation" or "Gentile". The Jaredites better qualified as "goy". (Ether 1:43) For one thing, the Jaredites ate swine. (See The Book of Mormon & Mound-builder America, 71, 74, Sow, Swine; Ether 9:18) It makes perfect sense that the word "goyim" would be used infrequently in describing Israelite peoples.

The city-state argument, deserves perhaps a 2 as a biblical background, supporting a literary setting in Joseph Smith's own country.

As for supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon, arguments could be made either way. Some would argue that a nineteenth century author (or authors) could have ascertained all this from the Bible, and available histories. Joseph Smith would have had to have been a scriptural genius. Dr. Coe would certainly agree!

I think the city-state argument deserves a 0.5 in support of the Book of Mormon containing real history, but the book's authentic literary setting is not set in Mesoamerica.

2.     “Capital” or leading city-state dominates a cluster of other communities

Coe’s standard: “Clusters of villages and communities were organized under a single polity, dominated by a large ‘capital’ village, which could have contained more than 1,000 people. (p. 51).” “Quirigua lies only 30 miles [Page 100](48 km) north of Copan; … that seems, on the basis of its inscriptions, to have periodically been one of the latter’s suzerainties” (p. 137). “Bonampak, politically important during the Early Classic, but by the Late Classic an otherwise insignificant center clearly under the cultural and political thumb of Yaxchilan” (p. 149). “These are Tamarindito, Arroyo de Piedras, Punta de Chimino, Aguateca, and Dos Pilas; the latter city seems to have dominated the rest” (p. 150). “We now know that not all Maya polities were equal: the kings of some lesser states were said to be ‘possessed’ by the rulers of more powerful ones (the phrase y-ajaw, ‘his king,’ specifies this relationship” (p. 275).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Omni 1:12; Alma 61:8; Helaman 1:27. Zarahemla is clearly the Nephite capital city in the Book of Mormon, with 140 mentions in the book. It is to Zarahemla that the other cities of the Nephites look to for leadership and supplies in their wars against the Lamanites. When the Lamanite chieftain Coriantumr invades the Nephite confederation, he makes straight for Zarahemla, “the capital city,” in the heart of the Nephite lands, and bypasses all the lesser cities. Later the city/land of Bountiful seems to become the Nephite capital city-state.

Analysis of correspondence: This political model was clearly part of Book of Mormon political arrangements, so it is specific and detailed in both books. It is also unusual. There is no corresponding political arrangement in Joseph Smith’s time which he might have used as a model. Dominant cities presiding over city-states is part of the Book of Mormon's biblical background. See for example (2 Nephi 17:8-9, Isaiah 7:8-9). City-states were not uncommon in ancient lands of the Bible. This does not prove that the American lands of the Book of Mormon were in Mesoamerica. Nor does it strongly suggest that the scripture is historical. Again, the Dales overrate their B.S. likelihood, asserting a strong 0.02, where it arguably might deserve a 0.5 weight.

In terms of the book's literary setting, I propose that the capital city argument actually deserves a 2, because of its biblical background, fitting the Mound-builder literary genre, and suggesting a setting in Joseph Smith's own country.

As for supporting the scripture's historicity, Coe would argue that Joseph Smith was a scriptural genius who knew his Bible! I choose to fairly give a likelihood of 0.5 in support of the Book of Mormon's historicity.

Likelihood = 0.02 0.5

3.     Some subordinate city-states shift their allegiance to a different “capital” city

Coe’s standard: “Dos Pilas; the latter city … [began] putting together a large-scale state as early as the seventh century AD, when a noble lineage arrived from Tikal and established a royal dynasty. The family was clearly adroit in its political maneuvers, switching from an allegiance to their cousins at Tikal to one with Calakmul, its arch-enemy” (p. 150).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 23:31 and Alma 43:4‒5. The Amalekites and later the Zoramites, both of whom are Nephites by birth but have dissented from the Nephites and built their own cities, go over to the Lamanites as a body.

Analysis of correspondence: The analysis is specific and detailed. In both cases, whole city-states changed their political allegiance to that of a former enemy. This does not seem unusual to a modern reader and probably would not have seemed unusual even to a country boy in the relatively innocent early 19^th century.

Likelihood = 0.1 Possibly overrated!

READ YOUR BIBLE! Learn for instance about Hebron, Jerusalem, and the ancient city of Samaria. Though it risks being overrated, we may argue that the Book of Mormon's biblical parallels on the topic of shifting city-state allegiances, are specific enough to deserve a weight of 10, in favor of a literary setting fitting the America Mound-builder genre. This genre includes works which significantly draw from the Bible.

As for  the scripture's historicity, Coe would argue that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and did a remarkable job imitating it!

On the other hand, we may choose to assign a positive likelihood of 0.1 favoring the Book of Mormon as containing ancient history comparable to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

4.     Complex state institutions

Coe’s standard: “In art, in religion, in state complexity, and perhaps even in the calendar and astronomy, Olmec models were transferred to the Maya” [Page 101](p. 61). “Civilization … has certainly been achieved by the time that state institutions … have appeared” (p. 63). “By Classic times, full royal courts came into view” (p. 93). “closer to the heart of the city itself, where the dwellings of aristocrats and bureaucrats” (p. 126).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 24:1‒2; Alma 2:6‒7, 14‒16; Alma 27:21‒22; Alma 30:9; Alma 51:2‒7; Alma 60:7, 11, 21, 24. Both the Book of Mormon and The Maya clearly show societies that have large, complex state institutions. For example, the Nephites had (1) some form of elections, (2) armies supported by the state, (3) chief judges and lower judges, and (4) kings (at least part of the time). The Lamanites appear to have had kings at all times. Dr. Coe (p. 63) notes that state institutions were developed among the Maya by the Late Preclassic, consistent with Book of Mormon timing for the references provided. We should expect some coincidences, while coming to terms with the fact that the Maya are not Hebrew according to mainstream authorities. Complex government institutions described in Book of Mormon America, parallel complex government institutions in biblical history.

Analysis of correspondence: Both the British and American civil governments had large, complex state institutions, but the Native American societies certainly did not. Be that as it may, we should ask what do works of the Mound-builder genre suggest about the complexity of alleged civilized Israelite society in ancient America? This comparison is specific, has quite a bit of detail, and probably would not have been unusual to Joseph Smith considering his background.

Likelihood = 0.02 0.5

READ YOUR BIBLE! The Book of Mormon describes relatively complex governments with judges and kings somewhat similar to descriptions in the Bible. Complex institutions described in the Book of Mormon deserve a 2, supporting a literary setting that fits in the American Mound-builder genre - a genre that includes works that draw upon the Bible.

As for  the scripture's historicity, Coe would argue that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and did a remarkable job imitating and recasting its details.

On the other hand, we may choose to assign a likelihood of 0.5 supporting the Book of Mormon as ancient history comparable to biblical history. (Mormon 7:8-9)

5.     Many cities exist

Coe’s standard: To name just a few of the cities mentioned in The Maya we have Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Coba, Tulum, Acanceh, Ek’ Balam, Mayapan, Piedras Negras, Ceibal, Palenque, Naranjo, El Mirador, Bonampak, Uaxactun, Kaminaljuyu, Takalik Abaj, Tikal (p. 9). “the great Usumacinta … draining the northern highlands, … twisting to the northwest past many a ruined Maya city” (p. 16‒17). “More advanced cultural traits, … the construction of cities” (p. 26).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Alma 51:20; Alma 59:5; 3 Nephi 9:3‒10. Many named cities are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Analysis of correspondence: By 1830 America had many cities, but there were no cities on the frontier where Joseph Smith translated and published the Book of Mormon. The Native Americans with whom Joseph was familiar did not build cities, Remains of Native American earth and timber fortified towns and villages were discovered in western NY. Evidence of these remains were known in Joseph Smith's time. Many Native Americans living on the western "frontier" in Joseph Smith's day, had been pushed their by colonial expansion. The opinion that the abandoned earth and timber fortified towns and villages of western NY were the work of Hebrews, or some other ancient immigrants, was not uncommon. (E. G. Squier, ABORIGINAL MONUMENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 1849)  although he might possibly have learned about some Native American cities by reading View of the Hebrews (See "Ethan Smith and the Authentic Literary Setting for the Book of Mormon"), so we do not count it as unusual. Nonetheless, the correspondence is specific and quite detailed.

Likelihood = 0.1

References to many cities in the Book of Mormon deserves a 10, supporting a literary setting that fits in the American Mound-builder genre - a genre that includes works that draw upon the Bible. See Roger G. Kennedy, Hidden Cities - The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization

As for the scripture's historicity, Coe would argue that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and correlated it with the discoveries of mounds, ruins and relics commonly know and discussed in his day.

On the other hand, we may choose to assign a positive likelihood of 0.1 supporting the Book of Mormon as history, in somewhat the same vein as biblical history. (Mormon 7:8-9)

6.     City of Laman (Lamanai) “occupied from earliest times” - possibly going back long before 600 BC (time of Lehi and his son Laman).

Coe’s standard: “Far up the New River … is the important site of Lamanai, … occupied from earliest times right into the post-Conquest period” (p. 85).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See 3 Nephi 9:10. The strong tendency is for consonants to be preserved in pronouncing words and names. For example, Beirut (Lebanon) is one of the oldest cities in the world, settled 5,000 years ago. The name derives from Canaanite-Phoenician be’erot and [Page 102]has been known as “Biruta,” “Berytus” and now “Beirut,” while always retaining those three consonants “BRT” in the correct order, and with no intervening consonants.²⁹

In the case of the city Lamanai (Laman), all three consonants, and only these three consonants, namely LMN, are found in the correct order and are the same consonants as given for the city of Laman mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This seems to be a “bullseye” for the Book of Mormon. Even so, the word "layman", or the name "Leman", or the name "Lehman", as in Lehman Caves, Nevada, all sound like the Book of Mormon name "Laman". We should also consider the similar sounding place-names "Raman" and "Lamaing" presented in the Malay Hypothesis. How did Joseph Smith correctly “guess” the correct consonants, and only the correct consonants in the correct order for the name of an important city “occupied from earliest times?” Similar sounding words with very different meanings are found in sundry languages. A good question to ask is, how early is the "earliest times" referred to by Coe? Could the origin of the word "lamanai" be older than the Book of Mormon "Laman" or "Lamoni"?

From the Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon, we find evidence that the name "Laman" is Hebrew.

Analysis of correspondence: The correspondence is specific, detailed and statistically unusual.

Likelihood = 0.02

"Laman" and "Lamoni" are names of persons in the Book of Mormon. While there is a city of Laman listed in 3 Nephi 9:10, there is no city, or land of Lamoni mentioned in scripture. "Laman" (e.g. brother of Lemuel) was ostensibly an Old World name (as is "Lemuel", Proverbs 31:1). The name "Lemuel" is Hebrew! Lamoni in the Book of Mormon was king over the land of Ishmael. How impressed should we be that there is a Mayan word that sounds like "Laman" or "Lamoni"?

The Hebrew word "lamaan" (למען) actually appears in the Hebrew of 1 Nephi 20:9 (Isaiah 48:9). It appears in the expression that is translated "for my name's sake". The name "Laman" could be short for "lemaanYah", meaning "for the sake of Jehovah", as in 1 Nephi 21:7 (Isaiah 49:7), or it could be short for "lemaanEl", "for God's sake". The Mayan word "Lamanai" has a very different meaning. See "LAMONI Didn't Mean CROCODILE".

Yes, there’s a place named “Lamanai” in Belize, Mesoamerica, but in Joseph Smith’s boyhood state of New York there’s "Oneida", just like the place name "Onidah" in the Book of Mormon. (Alma 32:4)

The Book of Mormon place-name "Onidah" could be seen as strong evidence for a literary setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America):

Likelihood = 50

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith was a scriptural genius, and was influenced by his environment. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood.

7.     Parts of the land were very densely settled

Coe’s standard: “A few cities, such as Chunchucmil in Yucatan, are amazingly dense” (p. 124). “At Tikal, within a little over 6 sq. miles … there are c. 3,000 structures” (p. 126). Recent work not reported in The Maya confirms that some Mayan cities were very densely populated.³⁰

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mormon 1:7.

Analysis of correspondence: The Native Americans ("Lamanites", descendents of Book of Mormon people) with whom Joseph Smith had direct contact did not have cities, let alone cities so densely settled. Their mound building relatives certainly had cities remarkably similar to those described in the Book of Mormon. (Roger G. Kennedy, Hidden Cities - The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization) Notice how carefully the Dales phrase the statement above, in  writing, "The Native Americans with whom Joseph Smith had direct contact did not have cities..." Do the Dales not know that the populations of whole settlements were wiped out by communicable diseases carried by Europeans. Harold Henderson in "The Rise and Fall of the Mound People", states that "When Europeans began settling the southeast and midwest, their diseases had already killed roughly four out of every five Native Americans." Irreversible discontinuities in cultural memory resulted. (Searching for the Great Hopewell Road, Pangea Productions Ltd, 1998) He may have learned about Native American cities from View of the Hebrews, but that book gives no information about how densely settled those cities were. Ethan Smith describes large fortified cities, and at least one lofty, venerable mound containing "many thousands (probably) of human skeletons". Instead, the Dales want to lay claim to large, dense Mayan populations as if these easily fit the bill for Book of Mormon Israelites; a thing which mainstream scholars, including Dr. Coe deny. Having a lot of people at a particular locale, is one thing. Proving that they are Book of Mormon people is quite another. So this correspondence is specific and detailed, but we do not count it as unusual, since Joseph Smith might have gotten the idea from View of the Hebrews.

Likelihood = 0.1

The Bible makes population claims for which there is still no archaeological support. (Numbers 1:45-47, 2 Samuel 24:9, 1 Chronicles 21:5) Despite a lack of archaeological support, the literary setting of the Bible is generally knowable, as is the Book of Mormon's authentic literary setting established by LDS Scripture.

Coe discouraged the idea that the Maya existed in dense populations. (2018 Podcast Part 2 16:46-22:17)

Joseph Smith's editorial on "AMERICAN ANTIQUITES" promotes the views put forth in the writings of Ethan Smith, Josiah Priest, and John Lloyd Stephens that there were (in recent centuries) migrations from the Mound-builder north into Mexico, and that "populous nations", and "mighty cities" existed anciently in Mound-builder America and beyond. Don't forget the following:

"…In our own country, the opening of forests and the discovery of tumuli or mounds and fortifications, extending in ranges from the lakes through the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi, mummies in a cave in Kentucky, the inscription on the rock at Dighton…the ruins of walls and a great city in Arkansas and Wisconsin Territory, had suggested…the strong belief that powerful and populous nations had occupied it and had passed away, whose histories are entirely unknown." (Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, 1841, pp. 97-98)

"If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, &c. - were to examine the Book of Mormon, ... uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book. They would find ... -that a great and a mighty people had inhabited this continent-that the arts sciences and religion, had prevailed to a very great extent, and that there was as great and mighty cities on this continent as on the continent of Asia." ("AMERICAN ANTIQUITES", Times & Seasons, July 15, 1842, Joseph Smith ED)

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America):

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith was a scriptural genius, and was influenced by his environment. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood.

8.     Large-scale public works

Coe’s standard: “Civilization … has certainly been achieved by the time that state institutions, large-scale public works … have appeared” (p. 63). Dr. Coe notes that city walls (certainly a public work) were built “when, in places, local conditions became hostile” (pp. 126, 194, 216).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 7:10; Mosiah 11:8‒13; Alma 14:27‒28; Alma 48:8; Helaman 1:22; 3 Nephi 6:7‒8; Ether 10:5‒6. The Book of Mormon speaks in some detail about the large-scale public works that its societies, particularly its more decadent societies, achieved.

[Page 103]Analysis of correspondence: This correspondence is both specific and detailed. It would also seem unusual. The Native Americans of Joseph Smith’s time and place did not build public works or temples. Why would Joseph Smith have written a book that clearly claimed that “the Indians” did so? Brings to mind Ephraim George Squier's, ABORIGINAL MONUMENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. It was well known in Joseph Smith's time that the Mound-builders built impressive, defensive walls of earth and timber, and sometimes of stone (rock). Read Joseph Smith's editorial on "AMERICAN ANTIQUITES" (Times & Seasons, July 15, 1842) to get an idea of what the Prophet knew relative to walls and fortified towns built by the Mound-builders. Joseph positively identifies ancient works of the Mound-builders with things described in the Book of Mormon. At the end of his article, the Prophet appears to agree with Alexander Humboldt via Josiah Priest, that peoples from the "regions of the now United States ... lake country" eventual migrated southward into Mexico, and there build impressive stone works in more recent centuries. (Priest, American Antiquities, "Traits of the Mosaic History found among the Azteca Nations") Here is where the discoveries of Stephens and Catherwood fit into Joseph's editorial: Joseph knows from John Lloyd Stephens, Josiah Priest and quite probably Ethan Smith, that the stone works in Mexico and Central America are relatively recent. All these authors suggest migrations from Mound-builder America to Mexico in more recent centuries. Joseph believes that Book of Mormon peoples migrated to Mesoamerica, but he never says that Book of Mormon lands are there. There is no explicit mention of walls, or buildings made of hewn stone in the Book of Mormon's American setting. See the scriptural citations above, to which the Dales should pay better attention. Wood and metal working are specifically mentioned. No mention of stonemasonry in wall or building construction. Nephi was divinely instructed on how to work timbers to build a ship. (1 Nephi 19:1) He knew how to work metals. (1 Nephi 17:9) Even his construction of an American temple in fashion like the Jerusalem temple, mentions only wood and metal working. (2 Nephi 5:15-16) Even prison walls were made of timber that could potentially catch fire. (Helaman 5:44) However, since  View of the Hebrews references temples and walled towns (not in any detail - Don't take the Dale's word for it. See for yourself), and Joseph Smith might have gotten the idea from that book, we will only count this correspondence as specific and detailed.

Likelihood = 0.1

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America):

Likelihood = 50

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith was influenced by curious talk of town's folk, and published works of his day. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood.

9.     Some rulers live in luxury

Coe’s standard: “The excavation of two tombs from this period has thrown much light on the luxury to which these rulers were accustomed” (p. 74).

Book of Mormon correspondence: Mosiah 11:3‒15. There is nothing in this topic, or the cited scripture that exclusively points to Mesoamerica. On the contrary, there are things listed in the scripture cited by the Dales, which correlated with Joseph Smith's own country, and a Mound-builder literary setting.

In the list of things taxed by the ensconced Nephite king Noah (נח meaning "comfort", "rest") - taxed at the same rate as mandated by Joseph of Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh (Genesis 47:23-26), is the Nephite metal "ziff". (See The Book of Mormon & Mound-builder America, 239, Ziff)

The mysterious metal "ziff" is listed between silver and copper in Mosiah 11:3. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon lists the following for the Hebrew word "zaphah" or "tsaphah" (צפה):

Metal plating is "ziphui" (צפוי). (Isaiah 30:22) Nephite "ziff" could therefore be plated metal (i.e. silver plated onto copper) assuming it is related to the Hebrew word "zaphah" found in scripture.

Joseph Smith's editorial on "AMERICAN ANTIQUITES" (Times & Seasons, July 15, 1842) cites "Silver very well plated on copper, has been found in several mounds ..." as material evidence in support of the Book of Mormon saga in the Prophet's own country.

Mosiah 11:3‒15 lists several other things not consistent with an ancient Mesoamerican setting: See The Book of Mormon & Mound-builder America, 103, Brass; 121, Copper; 145, Gold; 156, Iron; 203, Silver; 26, Fatling; 38, Grain; 108, Building; 88, Wood; 82, Vineyard; 86, Wine.

Note that notwithstanding mention of "buildings", "temple", and "a tower", only wood and metal working are mentioned, not stonemasonry.

Analysis of correspondence: Joseph probably knew that the British royal court lived in luxury, but the chiefs of the Indian tribes did not. Why would Joseph have assumed that the ancestors of the Indians had kings who lived in luxury? (Shows the Dales bias, and lack or research on the subject. In terms of biblical background, King Solomon comes to mind, 2 Nephi 5:16, 1 Kings 10:22-23) The Book of Mormon contrasts the reign of King Benjamin, who deliberately did not live in luxury, with decadent rulers who did. So Joseph was correct that some decadent rulers did live in luxury, but there are few details, and this is not particularly unusual.

Likelihood = 0.5

READ YOUR BIBLE!

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America):

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith was a scriptural genius who knew his Bible incredibly well, and that he was also familiar with things reportedly found in the mounds. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood, indicating that the Book of Mormon is historically tied to the Bible, and to Mound-builder America.

10.                                                Elaborate thrones

Coe’s standard: “Its superstructure’s chambers contain a stone throne in the form of a snarling jaguar, painted red, with eyes and spots of jade and fangs of shell; atop the throne rested a Toltec circular back-shield in turquoise mosaic” (p. 206).

Book of Mormon correspondence:  Mosiah 11:9; Ether 10:6.

Analysis of correspondence: Again, Joseph might have known about the elaborate throne of the British royal family (The Dales appear to be ignorant of what's in the Bible. The description of King Solomon's throne and glory, doubtless had some influence on European royalty and society. King David and Solomon, as scriptural examples of rulers, definitely influence the Nephites. Jacob 2:23-26), so it was perhaps not unusual, but what Native Americans was Joseph familiar with that had thrones, let alone elaborate thrones? How did he “guess” this one correctly? To be conservative, however, we will classify this as a specific and detailed correspondence, but perhaps not an unusual one.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Read about the throne of Solomon in particular: 1 Kings 7:7; 10:18-21.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith read and knew his Bible (arguably better than the Dales), and was also influenced by things discussed in his colonial American society. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood, suggesting that the Book of Mormon could be history, comparable to the Bible.

11.                                                Royalty exists, with attendant palaces, courts and nobles

Coe’s standard: “We now know a great deal about … Maya societies as the seats of royal courts” (p. 7). “By Classic times, full royal courts came into view” (p. 93). See also pp. 7, 93, 95, 126, and 209.

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 24:1‒2; Alma 22:2 ; Alma 51:7‒8, 21‒8.

Analysis of correspondence: Both the Book of Mormon and The Maya refer repeatedly to these institutions of royalty. So the correspondence is both specific and detailed. However, it may be a stretch to call it unusual. While there were no Indian kings, though the "Great Sun" chiefs of the Mississippian Mound-builders qualify as kings. It should be pointed out that in his American Heritage article, "... and the Mound-builders Vanished Form The Earth", Robert Silverberg remarked, "In this way was born a legend that dominated the American imagination throughout the nineteenth century. It was the myth of the Mound Builders, ... men spun tales of lost kings and demolished cities; a new religion even sprang from the legends. What was the truth behind all this supposition?" Joseph certainly knew about British royalty, and [Page 104]might have been influenced thereby to put it into the Book of Mormon. The Dales again underwhelm us with their inexcusable ignorance, or avoidance of topics tied to the American Mound-builder milieu. (See Richard Dewhurst, GRAHAM HANCOCK, "The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America") Indeed. what could Joseph Smith have understood about Mound-builder monarchs? In his "AMERICAN ANTIQUITES" editorial (Times & Seasons, July 15, 1842) on the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith quotes from Josiah Priest's work: "On the shores of the Mississippi , some miles below Lake Pepin, on a fine plain, exists an artificial elevation of about four feet high, extending a full mile, in somewhat of a circular form. It is sufficiently capacious to have covered 5000 men. Every angle of the breast work is yet traceable, though much defaced by time. Here, it is likely, conflicting realms as great as those of the ancient Greeks and Persians, decided the fate of ambitious Monarchs, of the Chinese, Mongol descent." So to be conservative, we will not classify this one as unusual, although it is specific and detailed.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! In the expression, "... the kings of the isles which are beyond the sea." (Jeremiah 25:22), the Hebrew word translated "isle" means coast, or habitable land. It is clear from scriptural context, that the Hebrew word does not exclusively mean a small landmass entirely surrounded by water. (Isaiah 20:5-6; 23:2, 6; 42:15) Consider also Ezekiel 27:35, 1 Neph1 19:12, and 2 Neph1 10:20-22.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith read and knew his Bible (evidently better than the Dales), and was also influenced by things discussed in 19th Century American society. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as history, comparable to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

12.                                                Royal or elite marriages for political purposes

Coe’s standard: “Where such stratagems typically played out was in royal or noble marriages” (p. 97). “An elite class consisting of central Mexican foreigners, and the local nobility with whom they had marriage ties” (p. 103).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Alma 17:24; Alma 47:35.

READ YOUR BIBLE!

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

13.                                                Feasting for political purposes

Coe’s standard: “In courts, feasts and gifts helped to bind alliances and keep underlings happy, with effects across the kingdom” (p. 97).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Alma 18:9; Alma 20:9.

Analysis of correspondence: Neither book offers a lot of distinguishing detail, although the references are specific. The practice seems unusual in Joseph’s frontier setting in democratic America. Why would Joseph Smith attribute this practice (unusual for him) to the ancestors of the Indians? Could Joseph Smith have possibly heard tell of peacemaking feasts attended by Indians and early settlers? 1 Nephi 13:10-20 obviously describes pilgrims, and early American colonists upon the Book of Mormon land of Lehi's inheritance (1 Nephi 13:30); whereon a free, and mighty nation, above all other nations would be raised up in the Latter-days. This correspondence is therefore ranked as specific and unusual but not detailed.

Likelihood = 0.1.

READ YOUR BIBLE! Read about the feast which Isaac held with Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phichol. (Genesis 26:26-31) Read about the feast which David held with Abner and his men. (2 Samuel 3:20-21) Read about the celebration which Adonijah conducted to set himself up as king in the stead of his father David. (1 Kings 1:24-26) Read about a feast made by king Ahasuerus. (Esther 1:2-4)

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

14.                                                Gifts to the king for political advantage

Coe’s standard: The Maya refers clearly to this practice: “In courts, feasts and gifts helped to bind alliances and keep underlings happy, with effects across the kingdom” (p. 97).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 2:12.

Analysis of correspondence: The Book of Mormon reference to political gifts is less specific but strongly suggestive. Again, the practice seems unusual in Joseph’s frontier setting in democratic America. The Dale's argument is nonsense! Why would Joseph Smith attribute this practice (unusual for him) to the ancestors of the Indians? How about common sense, and precedence in the Bible! This correspondence is therefore ranked as only somewhat specific and unusual. The overall likelihood is downgraded from specific and unusual to only specific.

Likelihood = 0.5

READ YOUR BIBLE! Abram understood the political and religious ramifications of accepting gifts. (Genesis 14:21-24) As for giving, or refusing to give gifts to kings, see 1 Samuel 10:26-27, 1 Kings 4:21, 2 Kings 17:3, 2 Chronicles 17:5, 11; 32:23.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

15.                                                Political factions organize around a member of the elite

Coe’s standard: “courts did not operate by individual actions alone. They worked instead through factions pivoting around a high ranking courtier or member of the royal family” (p. 97).

[Page 105]Book of Mormon correspondence: See Helaman 1:2‒9.

Analysis of correspondence: In America in the early 19^th century, the party system had already been born, and the party often pivoted around a key political figure like Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, so this idea was not unusual to Joseph. However, it is both specific and quite detailed.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Read, for instance, about Absalom the son of David. (2 Samuel 15:6-10)

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

16.                                                Foreigners move in and take over government, often as family dynasties

Coe’s standard: “[The Founder of Copan] was another stranger coming in from the west, perhaps from Teotihuacan” (p. 118). “[At Dos Pilas] … a noble lineage arrived from Tikal and established a royal dynasty” (p. 150). “Uxmal … was the seat of the Xiu family, but this was a late lineage of Mexican origin that could not possibly have built the site” (p. 180).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Omni 1:19; Alma 47:35; Helaman 1:16.

Analysis of correspondence: Again, both the Book of Mormon and The Maya specifically refer to this practice and in considerable detail. However, Joseph Smith might have been aware of the change in family dynasties in England about a century earlier when the House of Hanover succeeded the House of Stuart as kings of Great Britain, and used this as his model (however unlikely). So the correspondence is specific and detailed, but perhaps not unusual. To be conservative, we assign this a likelihood of 0.1.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Read, for instance, Exodus 1:8-11. Read Judges 3-14. Note for example times when the lords of the Philistines ruled over Israel.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

17.                                                City administrative area with bureaucrats and aristocrats

Coe’s standard: At Tikal “closer to the heart of the city itself, [were] the dwellings of aristocrats and bureaucrats” (p. 126), “the palaces were the administrative centers of the city” (p. 128). At Aguateca the archaeologist was able “to identify specialized areas, such as a house which was probably that of the chief scribe of the city” (p. 151). “The House of the Governor was built, probably to serve as his administrative headquarters” (p. 182).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Alma 60:19, 22; Helaman 9:1‒7.

Analysis of correspondence: Both books are quite specific on this point, but the Book of Mormon does not provide a lot of detail. However, Joseph Smith never saw a state or national capital city with its administrative center and nearby houses for officials until well after the the Book of Mormon was published; though there are certainly inferences to this in the Bible. So this is unusual and specific.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Read for example Nehemiah chapter 3. Also Esther 1:5; 2:11; 4:11; 5:1; 6:12; 8:2.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

18.                                                Records kept specifically of the reigns of the kings

Coe’s standard: “the ‘stela cult’ — the inscribed glorification of royal lineages and their achievements” (p. 177). “The text is completely historical, recounting the king’s descent from Pakal the Great” (p. 264n169). “The figures that appear in Classic reliefs are not gods and priests, but dynastic autocrats and their spouses, children, and subordinates” (p. 273).

[Page 106]Book of Mormon correspondence: See 1 Nephi 9:4; Jacob 3:13; Jarom 1:14.

Analysis of correspondence: Like The Maya, the Book of Mormon is very specific and detailed about separate records being kept of the reigns of the kings. We know of no reason or existing historical model that would have led Joseph Smith to have correctly “guessed” that the doings of the kings were kept separately from the rest of the history of a people. (1 Kings 14:19, 29; 15:17, 23, 31; 16:5 etc.) This is a specific, detailed and unusual (rather, biblically evident) correspondence.

Likelihood = 0.02 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Books of Kings.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

19.                                                Native leaders incorporated in power structure after subjugation

Coe’s standard: “Mesoamerican ’empires’ such as Teotihuacan’s were probably not organized along Roman lines; … rather, they were ‘hegemonic,’ in the sense that conquered bureaucracies were largely in place” (p. 100). “it seems obvious that many of the native princes were incorporated into the new power structure” (p. 206). “Or perhaps Calakmul found it easier … to rule through local authorities” (p. 276).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 19:26‒27; Mosiah 24:1‒2.

Analysis of correspondence: The Book of Mormon and The Maya are both specific and detailed about this practice. As Dr. Coe suggests, the only model Joseph Smith might conceivably have heard about for control of subjugated peoples was the Roman one, which was the opposite of the system used among the Maya, and also the opposite of the system used in the Book of Mormon. How did Joseph Smith “guess” that one correctly? Specific, detailed and unusual (rather, biblical). Kings of Judea were subject to other rulers.

Likelihood = 0.02 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! E.g. read about Zedekiah, king of Judah. Read Jeremiah 27:12-14, and 1 Nephi 1:4.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)  

20.                                                Tribute required of subjects

Coe’s standard: “the ruler took in tax or tribute” (p. 93). “Scenes with food, drink, and tribute” (p. 97). “displays of captives or tribute” (p. 124). “On what did the population live? One answer is tribute” (p. 216).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 7:15, 22; Mosiah 19:15, 22, 26, 28; Mosiah 22:7, 10. Also Alma 23:38‒39; Alma 7:22; Alma 24:9.

Analysis of correspondence: Once again, the Book of Mormon and The Maya are both specific and detailed about the practice of tribute. However, it is possible that Joseph had heard about this practice either through the Bible or other sources. Finally the Dales appear willing to consider a possible correlation with the Bible. The taxation parallel between Genesis 47:23-26 and Mosiah 11:3‒15 (which the Dales skip over in their long list of scriptural citations above) was discussed previously in the critical commentary on 9. So we will classify this correspondence as specific and detailed, but not unusual.

Likelihood = 0.1

Considering the Bible further on the subject of taxes and tribute: Genesis 49:14-15, Joshua 16:10, 1 Kings 9:21, 2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 8:7-8; 17:11, Matthew 17:24-27.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

21.                                                Limited number of important patrilineages

Coe’s standard: “There were 24 ‘principal’ lineages in Utatlan” (p. 225). “There were approximately 250 patrilineages in Yucatan at the time of the Conquest, and we know from Landa how important they were” (p. 234).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Jacob: 1:13; Alma 47:35; 4 Nephi 1:36‒38; Mormon 1:8‒9.

Analysis of correspondence: Both the Book of Mormon and The Maya are very specific and detailed about how important it was to belong to a leading patrilineage. While Joseph Smith might have picked up this idea from reading the Bible (that is, the tribes of Israel) we think this is very unlikely. So we regard this correspondence as specific, detailed and unusual. The Dale's allegation that because the Maya placed importance on a select patrilineality, that this constitutes strong evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient Mesoamerican history, is nonsense! It makes the Dales look desperate for "strong" evidence.

Likelihood = 0.02 0.1

Consider the Bible and the Book of Mormon further on the subject: 1 Chronicles 5:2, 1 Nephi 5:14-16, 2 Nephi 3:4, Alma 10:3, 1 Chronicles 9:3, 2 Chronicles 30:1, 10-12, 18-20. Consider also LDS Doctrine and Covenants 27:5, and the lineage of Ephraim in Lehi's company. ("7 Things We Now Know About the Lost 116 Pages of the Book of Mormon")

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

22.                                                King and “king elect”

Coe’s standard: “The K’iche’ state was headed by a king, a king-elect, and two ‘captains'” (p. 226). “royal youths … or the ‘great youth,’ … perhaps the heir-designate” (p. 278).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 1:10; Mosiah 6:3.

[Page 107]Analysis of correspondence: The Book of Mormon also refers to the practice of an heir-designate, so this is a specific correspondence, but it is not particularly detailed. Also, Joseph may have been aware of the practice of having heirs to the throne of Great Britain. To be conservative, we will assign this correspondence a likelihood of 0.5, although it may perhaps merit a greater evidentiary strength.

Likelihood = 0.5

READ YOUR BIBLE! E.g. 1 Kings 1:29-30, 32-35, 38-48, 1 Chronicles 23:1.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

23.                                                There are captains serving kings

Coe’s standard: “The K’ iche’ state was headed by a king, a king-elect and two ‘captains'” (p. 226).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 22:3.

Analysis of correspondence: Gideon clearly serves in the capacity of a captain to King Limhi, so the idea is specific or highly suggestive. It also seems unusual. Where would Joseph Smith have come up with this idea? Because of lack of detail, we will assign this correspondence a likelihood of 0.5, although it probably merits a greater strength.

Likelihood = 0.5

READ YOUR BIBLE! E.g. Exodus 15:4, 2 Samuel 4:2; 18:1, 5; 23:8; 24:4, 1 Kings 2:5; 22:31, Nehemiah 2:9, Daniel 3:2.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

24.                                                Political power is exercised by family dynasties

Coe’s standard: “[Spearthrower Owl installed his own son] … as the tenth ruler of Tikal” (p. 109). “King of the great city of Palenque [was] the second son of the renowned Palenque [ruler Pakal the Great]” (p. 161). “There were 24 ‘principal’ lineages in Utatlan, closely identified with the buildings … in which the lords carried out their affairs” (p. 225). “The ancient Maya realm was … a class society with political power … in the hands of an hereditary elite” (p. 234). “the names of the cities themselves or of the dynasties that ruled over them” (p. 271). “dynastic record of all Palenque rulers” (p. 274).

Book of Mormon correspondence: From the beginning of the Book of Mormon, the key political question was which of sons of Lehi had the right to exercise political power over the rest of Lehi’s descendants; in other words, who would be the leader of an hereditary elite? See Mosiah 1:9; Mosiah 11:1; [Page 108]Mosiah 19:16, 26; Mosiah 28:10 ; Alma 17:6; Alma 20:8; Alma 24:3‒4; Alma 50:40; Helaman 1:4‒5; Helaman 2:2; Ether 6:24.

Analysis of correspondence: Both books very clearly attest to the central importance of family dynasties. The Lamanite political model was clearly that of hereditary kings. Even among the supposedly more democratic Nephites, following the political reforms of King Mosiah, the office of chief judge (an elected position) often descended from father to son, for example, Alma to his son Alma, Pahoran to his son Pahoran, etc. Obviously, there was a de facto hereditary elite even during a time of popular elections.

Likewise, The Maya provides many examples of continuing conflict over the question of which lineage would exercise political leadership. So this correspondence is specific and quite detailed. However, it is not unusual. Joseph might have been aware of the various family dynasties in Europe and Great Britain, and their unending conflicts. This correspondence is thus assigned a likelihood of 0.1.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Read 1 Chronicles 23:1, and consider the Davidic dynasty: 2 Samuel 2:10-11, Jeremiah 33:16-22.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

25.                                                Kings rule over subordinate provincial or territorial rulers, some of noble blood (subkings)

Coe’s standard: “The wily K’uk’ulkan II populated his city with provincial rulers and their families” (p. 216). “At the head of each statelet in Yucatan was the … the territorial ruler who had inherited his post in the male line” (p. 236). “The kings of some lesser states were said to be ‘possessed’ by the rulers of more powerful ones” (p. 275).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 24:2‒3; Alma 17:21; Alma 20:4, 8.

Analysis of correspondence: This pattern is clearly evident among the Lamanite kings in the Book of Mormon and also as detailed by Dr. Coe in The Maya. So the correspondence is specific and quite detailed in both books. We know of no political model in his time on which Joseph Smith might have relied to correctly “guess” this correspondence. The kings of Great Britain did not have provincial rulers of royal blood. Thus this correspondence is specific, detailed and unusual. However, because of its overlap with correspondence 1.2, we assign only a likelihood of 0.5 to this correspondence. This choice is due to the specific additional information that sometimes these provincial rulers were of royal blood.

Likelihood = 0.5

READ YOUR BIBLE! Consider 2 Samuel 10:19, 1 Kings 20:14-19, Esther 1:3, Jeremiah 27:6-7, 12-14, Ezekiel 26:7, Daniel 2:37.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

26.                                                “Seating” means accession to political power

Coe’s standard: “Epigraphers conclude that pectoral reverse records the ‘seating’ or accession to power, of the ruler in question” (p. 91). “Important glyphs now known to relate to dynastic affairs include … inauguration or ‘seating’ in office” (p. 274).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Alma 8:12; Helaman 7:4; 3 Nephi 6:19.

[Page 109]Analysis of correspondence: On three separate occasions, the Book of Mormon uses exactly this word seating or seat to describe the holding of or accession to political power. So the correspondence is specific, detailed and unusual. It seems very unlikely that Joseph Smith would have correctly “guessed” this particular word.

Likelihood = 0.02 0.1 The Dales seem to have a propensity for trying to make a "strong" correspondence out of a correspondence that only deserves to be ranked as "positive".

READ YOUR BIBLE! Consider Deuteronomy 33:20-21, 2 Samuel 23:8, 1 Kings 2:19, 10:19, Esther 3:1-2, Job 23:3, Ezekiel 28:2, Matthew 23:1-3.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

27.                                                Separation of civil and religious authority

Coe’s standard: “a hereditary Chief Priest resided in that city, … but in no source do we find his authority or that of the priests superseding civil power” (p. 243).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Alma 4:16‒18.

Analysis of correspondence: Under the leadership of Alma the Younger, the role of the head of state and the head of the church were separated, while they had previously been combined. It appears that this was the pattern afterwards among the Nephites, but we do not know what the pattern was among the Lamanites. So this correspondence is specific, but not detailed. Also, this pattern of “separation of church and state” as practiced in America would not have been unusual to Joseph Smith.

Likelihood = 0.5

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

29.                                                Royal courts imitate their enemies

Coe’s standard: “Courts were often imitative. Through a curious form of standardization, they emulated each other, even those of enemies” (p. 95).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Alma 47:23.

Analysis of correspondence: The Book of Mormon likewise refers to a specific custom of Lamanite royalty which had been taken from their Nephite enemies. Dr. Coe himself regards this imitative feature as “curious”; so we will agree to that point. It is indeed unusual. However, there is not a lot of detail in either The Maya or the Book of Mormon about these imitative practices, so we will classify this correspondence as specific and unusual, but not detailed.

The Hebrew word translated "household" in 2 Samuel 15:16 (referring to King David's court, or household) is "bet" (בית). This word can mean family or court, but is also the word simply translated "house" at the end of 2 Samuel 15:16. See also 1 Kings 16:18, and Jeremiah 52:13. The Book of Mormon use of the word "household" and "house" matches biblical use. (Alma 22:23; 23:3)

Restored Seneca Council House - Western NY (Alma 19:18)

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 2

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a supportive 0.5 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

31.                                                Candidates for high office had to possess hidden knowledge

Coe’s standard: “Any candidate for high office had to pass an occult catechism known as the ‘Language of Zuywa.'” (p. 236).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Enos 1:1; Mosiah 1:2.

Analysis of correspondence: King Benjamin “caused that [his sons] should be taught in the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding.” Later, his son Mosiah became the ruler of the people. Likewise, Enos (a prince of sorts) was also taught in the “language” of his father. One is led to ask: “Was the regular course of education not sufficient for these young men; was their common language not enough to qualify them to lead?” Apparently not. This correspondence has some detail, and while it is specific enough to get our attention, and is definitely unusual, we do not think it merits a likelihood of 0.02; instead it is assigned a likelihood of 0.1.

Likelihood = 0.1

Its not too surprising that those holding high office would possess language skills beyond that of a commoner. See 2 Kings 18:26-28.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

32.                                                Abrupt breaks in dynasties

Coe’s standard: “Thus, we can expect a good deal of local cultural continuity even in those regions taken over by the great city; but in the case of the lowland Maya, we shall also see outright interference in dynastic matters, with profound implications for the course of Maya history. (p. 100). “there are signs of … profound breaks in the dynasty” (p. 116).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Omni 1:1‒19; Alma 24:1‒2.

Analysis of correspondence: The Maya also describes numerous other instances in which one Maya kingdom invaded another and abruptly changed the ruling dynasty. The same thing also occurs in the Book of Mormon, [Page 111]when King Mosiah replaces (peacefully) the ruler(s) of Zarahemla; and later in Alma 24 when the rebellious Lamanites depose their hereditary king. So this correspondence is specific and detailed in both books, but it probably does not qualify as unusual. Joseph might well have known about the many European wars, with multiple rulers bent on deposing each other.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Consider other mentions in scripture of abrupt dynastic breaks: Exodus 1:8-11, Daniel 9:1-2; 10:1.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

33.                                                Subservient peoples are said to “possess” the land while ruled by a dominant power

Coe’s standard: “The kings of some lesser states were said to be ‘possessed’ by the rulers of more powerful ones” (p. 275). Coe seems to be saying that Mayan kings of lesser states were considered the property of ('possessed' by) Mayan rulers of more dominant states. It is not clear that this is exactly the same thing that the Book of Mormon is saying in regards to possessing a land under a dominant power, divine or human:

Book of Mormon correspondence: See Mosiah 19:15. This scripture which the Dales cite, alleging correspondence, is saying that the Lamanites, who captured certain Nephites, allowed those Nephites to "possess" the "land of Nephi" as long as certain conditions were met, which included paying tribute to the Lamanites.

Analysis of correspondence: It is interesting that this specific word possess is the one used by the Maya to describe subservient rulership. Likewise the Lehites (for example, 2 Nephi 1:9) and the Jaredites (for example, Ether 2:8) were instructed that theirs was a “promised land” and that they would “possess” it as long as they kept their covenants with their heavenly king. That same word possess was the relationship the Israelites were to have with their lands of promise, under God’s rule (for example, Deuteronomy 11:8, 2 Nephi 24:2). The wording here is highly specific, and unusual, but may not be detailed enough in the case of the Maya to warrant a likelihood of 0.02, but it does warrant a likelihood of 0.1. How would Joseph Smith have guessed how appropriate that particular word was to describe this relationship between a more powerful king and his subservient kings among the Maya?

Joseph Smith did not have to divinely know, or guess this detail about Mayan rulers. There is no definite correspondence here. The exact expression "posses the land" is a scriptural expression repeated over and over in the Bible: e.g. Deuteronomy 3:20; 4:1; 8:1; 9:4, 23; 10:11 ... The Hebrew root of the word translated "possess" in Deuteronomy 11:8 (cited by the Dales) is "yaresh" (ירש). This oft repeated Hebrew root doesn't just mean to take possession, it means to inherit by driving out previous owners, to dispossess, to occupy by conquest, to make poor one's enemy. This is somewhat the antithesis of the meaning that the Dales want to spin. Do the Dales mean to say that the Lamanites possessed the land of Nephi, and the Nephites in the land? This is not exactly what Mosiah 19:15 is saying.

Likelihood = 0.1

READ YOUR BIBLE! Consider Jeremiah 30:3; 32:9-15. The Hebrew root of the word translated "possessed" in Jeremiah 32:15 is "qanah" (קנה), meaning to get, acquire, buy, purchase, redeem.

Literary Setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible:

Likelihood = 10

Historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Uncertain. You could go with Coe's negative argument that Joseph Smith knew his Bible well, and based the Book of Mormon on it. I choose, in this case, a positive 0.1 likelihood for the Book of Mormon as sacred history, tied to the Bible. (Mormon 7:8-9)

2.     Calculation of overall likelihood for political correspondences

3.                 There are 33 separate political correspondences between the Book of Mormon and The Maya. Of these, nine have a likelihood of 0.5, 16 have a likelihood of 0.1 and eight have a likelihood of 0.02. Thus the overall likelihood of these 33 positive correspondences is 0.5⁹ x 0.1¹⁶ x 0.02⁸ =

4. 4.99 x 10^–33. Rather, 0.5¹² x 0.1²⁰ x 0.02 ≈ 4.88 x 10^–26, given corrections in blue.

Thus far the Dales have failed to show any correspondence that unambiguously ties the Book of Mormon to ancient Mesoamerica.

Overall likelihood of literary setting in Joseph Smith's own country (Mound-builder America) fitting into the Mound-builder literary genre drawing on the Bible: