Even if the Book of Mormon were proven true it could mean that a thousand fairies whispered the story to J, or that Joseph Smith tapped into a time warp, or that he connected to the Akashic records, or that some extraterrestial insect like being came down and gave him a history of the world, or that he was the reincarnation of Mormon and in a trance remembered it all.
~td~
Hardly, the most hard pressed critic would fall under such a find that would prove the Book of Mormon true. The existence of god would definitely be proven and you would be a member. Now of course, there are some hard boiled eggs out there and they may hold off. But most... people would join the LDS church.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
The Holy Land is full of Biblical sites and archaeological evidence of those who lived there during those times. Does not mean the Bible is true or the accounts of miracles are true, just that the land supposedly inhabited by Biblical people was actually inhabited by them.
Something from Book of Mormon times should have survived. Great battles with thousands killed would leave a trace. The infrastructure to support the many thousands/millions written about in the book would leave something showing they were here. After all, Adams original Altar was still up to be found by Joseph Smith. The bones of Zelph, the great white Lamanite warrior were found. What happened to the rest?
Great calamities and upheavals happened at the time of Christs death in the old world. Where are the geological evidences of this in New York around the Hill Cumorah or elsewhere in the 'lands of the Lamanites' per Joseph?(Missouri, Ohio and close by?)
Being 'converted for the wrong reasons' is foolish. Being converted and learning more makes sense.
I agree with others posting on this site that trying to convince some of Truth by telling them lies is stupid. I can carry more water in a sieve than most LDS I know can find truth from the Book of Mormon.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
So far, the best archaeological evidence that the LDS church/apologists have offered for the Book of Mormon is John Clark. And in support of those who have offered Mr. Clark, I have to agree that, unlike other archaeological evidence/arguments they've offered to date, Clark does exist with many witnesses and documents to verify his existence.
The problem I have had with offering John Clark as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon is that I have read the Book of Mormon many times now and can't find him mentioned or identified anywhere in it.
Perhaps he was described in a different Nephite or Lamanite name?
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
