The Know

Since the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, much new research has come to light that has better illuminated what the book’s modern readers know about the ancient Americas and its peoples. Moreover, details found in the Book of Mormon that were considered to be strange or anachronistic have actually turned out to be authentic details to the early Americas.1

If the Book of Mormon is a history of a real people, as Latter-day Saints affirm, this should be expected.2 If, however, skeptics are correct and the Book of Mormon is a work of nineteenth-century fiction, “then its author was guessing every time he wrote as fact something about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.”3 According to Michael D. Coe, the preeminent Mayanist of the late twentieth century, in 1830 the general knowledge about Mesoamerican culture and history was essentially null.4 Thus, any correct series of guesses by this supposed author could be statistically evaluated to determine just how likely this hypothesis is.

Bruce E. Dale and Brian M. Dale have provided such a study, comparing the details of the Book of Mormon with those in The Maya, one of the most prominent introductory works on Mesoamerica, authored by Michael D. Coe and Stephen Houston. Specifically, the Dales used a Bayesian analysis to determine just how mathematically likely it is that a book such as the Book of Mormon could have been a series of guesses.

While many statistical methods involve mathematical knowns (such as the odds of rolling a pair of dice to get two ones) Bayesian statistics “provides one approach to the situation in which mathematically well-defined probabilities do not exist.”5 This kind of approach is necessary with the Book of Mormon since the exact mathematical probability of guessing specific unknown historical details correctly is not possible to determine with precision.

By utilizing a Bayesian approach, one can evaluate the strength of a given hypothesis based on the likelihood of all evidence occurring.6 This can allow interested readers to rationally update their prior beliefs given the strength or weakness of any given evidence.

Using a Bayesian analysis, the Dales assigned a given piece of evidence a likelihood ratio, or “Bayes factor,” of 0.5, 0.1, and 0.02 based on how specific, detailed, and unusual a given claim in the Book of Mormon is.7 These factors represent approximate odds of someone guessing a detail right given whether this was something known when the Book of Mormon was published. These can be further classified as Bayesian supportive, positive, or strong evidence, respectively. The Dales aimed to be conservative in estimating these values so as not to overestimate the value of the evidence or to allow single piece of evidence to overshadow or sway the findings as a whole.8

For example, a claim that is specific but easy enough for someone in the nineteenth century to have learned elsewhere is given a one-in-two chance of actually reflecting an aspect of the ancient world. The Book of Mormon states that multiple cities were named after their original founder, a practice attested in Mesoamerica.9 However, “in frontier America it was common practice to name small towns and villages after the founder or founding family,” so the Dales rank this as only Bayesian supportive evidence.10

Claims that are specific and detailed are given a one in ten chance of reflecting an accurate guess regarding the ancient world. For instance, the Book of Mormon makes repeated reference to the interpreters, a set of seer stones that allowed various Nephites to receive revelation or translate other languages.11 Mesoamerican archeologists and anthropologists have noted a long-standing tradition among Mesoamerican peoples of utilizing crystals or other stones in divining practices.12 However, because a similar (albeit slightly different) practice was known to Joseph Smith, the Dales grant this piece of evidence a factor of 0.1 of being randomly guessed correctly.13

Finally, claims that are not only detailed and specific but also unusual are given a factor of 0.02; that is, an author should get only about one in fifty of these guesses right. The Dales define unusual claims as those that “very probably were not known to the [supposed] writer, someone living in upstate New York in the early 19th century, when virtually nothing of ancient Mesoamerica was known.”14

An example of a specific, detailed, and unusual claim is found in the destructions in 3 Nephi 8:5–23. In the Dales’ opinion, this account is “an obvious eye-witness account of a volcanic eruption, with associated earthquakes, terrible storms and lightning, and thick, choking, nearly unbreathable air.”15 No one in 1820s New York had experienced a volcanic eruption of this magnitude before, nor could they have known about the evidence for great volcanic destructions in Mesoamerica sometime during the first half of the first century AD.16 These considerations make it extremely unlikely for Joseph Smith to have guessed correctly; hence, it is considered Bayesian strong evidence.

In total, the Dales analyzed 131 data points from the Book of Mormon with varying levels of support. Once all the data had been analyzed, however, they began their comparison with a “skeptical prior” of a billion to one “in favor of the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is indeed false.” They also took into account several statements made in the Book of Mormon not yet supported by archeological evidence and multiplied those numbers, coming up with an even larger hurdle for any Book of Mormon evidence to cross before the book’s internal evidence outweighed the possibility that it was a work of fiction. Additionally, they performed control studies comparing details in The Maya with two other nineteenth-century works.17 The authors also compared previous editions of Coe and Houston’s work and observed that as time progressed, correspondences only increased in number. This means that as new discoveries were made, the case for the Book of Mormon only grew stronger.18

Once these numbers had been calculated, the Bayesian analysis culminated by multiplying the skeptical prior—the odds that the Book of Mormon is false—with the combined body of evidence in support for the Book of Mormon. Upon doing so, the Dales concluded, “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.”19 In other words, the evidence for the Book of Mormon appears to far outweigh the possibility that Joseph Smith could have consistently guessed so much right about the ancient Americas.

The Why

The Book of Mormon recounts that when the signs leading up to the birth of Jesus Christ began to be manifest, many Nephites rejected these signs, stating, “Some things they [the prophets] may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken” (Helaman 16:16). While archeological and anthropological finds are much humbler in scope than the great signs seen by the Nephites, they are no less amazing when viewed in their proper context and compared closely with the Book of Mormon. It becomes increasingly difficult for informed readers to similarly and dismissively declare, “Some things Joseph Smith may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that the Book of Mormon cannot be true.”

As time progresses, the evidence continues to vindicate the Book of Mormon’s claims of being an authentic history of an ancient American civilization. Over twenty years ago, John L. Sorenson, the preeminent scholar of the Book of Mormon in ancient America, observed: “At point after point the scripture accurately reflects the culture and history of ancient Mesoamerica. … Literally no person in Joseph Smith’s day knew or could have known enough facts about exotic Central America to depict the subtle and accurate picture of ancient life that we find as background for the Book of Mormon.” This led Sorenson to conclude that either Joseph Smith “was an unbelievably creative writer” or “he had access to an actual ancient Mesoamerican book.”20 Bruce and Brian Dale’s Bayesian analysis supports and helps quantify what Sorenson determined after sixty years of studying the Book of Mormon and pre-Columbian America.21

Of course, none of this can ever prove without a doubt that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and readers should be careful to note that as they examine the evidence.  Ultimately, the only way readers can know with a surety that the Book of Mormon is true is through faith and seeking revelation from God, just as Moroni instructed (see Moroni 10:3–5). It is only through this method that modern readers can gain the peace they need through this book of scripture and get the most out of personal and family studies. When readers are faced with questions, however, studies such as the Dales’ can them help maintain an environment in which faith can flourish.22