Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[44Foxtrot]

I confess that I didn't read through that thread. However, if none of this becomes credible physical evidence, then you have too narrowly defined the term.

My definition of credible physical evidence was fairly standard and was not narrow by any means. Credible physical evidence would be any appropriately dated physical artifact found in the New World that was specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon and, according to competent neutral third parties, would not have otherwise have been expected to be present in the New World during the period between about 2500 BC and 620 AD.

May I ask a simple question? Do you accept or reject the identification of the location of Troy? If so, what credible physical evidence are you accepting? If no, why is there no credible physical evidence?

I appreciate you bringing up Troy because it serves as an excellent example of the difference between credible physical evidence and the evidence you provided for the Book of Mormon.

Recalling that Troy was mentioned specifically in the Homer's Iliad along with a description of its relative size and location, let's start with a short passage from an article in "Archeology" (Volume 57 Number 3, May/June 2004) regarding excavations at Troy.

Please note that, based on the Iliad and other contemporary written records, archeologists agree on where Troy actually is, which is something that cannot be said for any city in the Book of Mormon. In fact, Mormons can't even agree, to within 3,000 miles or so, on where Zarahemla even might have been.

Imagine an archeologist standing up at an American Archeology Meeting and stating that Members of the Society would really like to find Troy, but were unsure where to look because some interpretations of the legend of Troy placed it in Anatolia, some in the Adriatic, some in North Africa, and some in Western Europe.

But I digress. Here is the passage:

Troy appears to have been destroyed around 1180 B.C. (this date corresponds to the end of our excavation of levels Troy VIi or VIIa), probably by a war the city lost. There is evidence of a conflagration, some skeletons, and heaps of sling bullets.

So here we have appropriately dated artifacts and even human skeletons from 1180 BC, and they are in the right place and from the right time to have been the basis for the epic battles described by Homer in the Iliad. Please also note that we have independent confirmation that Homer actually existed, which is something that cannot be said for any of the several claimed ancient authors of the BoM.

This raises the issue of confirmatory contemporary written records. As the passage below from the same article on the archeology of Troy shows, there was written contemporary confirmation by at least one other culture as to the existence and location of Troy.

Furthermore, according to Hittite records, there were political and military tensions around Troy precisely during the thirteenth and early twelfth centuries B.C.--the supposed time of Homer's Trojan War.

No such confirmatory records exist for Zarahemlah or any other city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Contemporary records exist, to be sure, but they do not mention Zarahemla. In fact, if one likes the limited geography model, the contemporary Olmec and Mayan records provide a historical narrative, supported by countless appropriately dated physical artifacts including entire cities, that could scarcely be more different from that contained in the Book of Mormon.

As to your evidence and your Troy analogy, I recommend that you read the article I have cited here. Please note that these scientists do not try to prove that the Trojan Wars actually took place based on the text of the Iliad. To attempt to do so would be laughable. They looked for contemporary artifacts as would have been expected from descriptions in the Iliad, and found them.

In stark contrast, you are trying to prove that the great and final battle and all of the other events described in the Book of Mormon actually took place by performing subjective analysis of its text. You seem to feel this is credible evidence.

This while Mormons have no clue where this battle might have taken place, while those stakeholders in the issue who claim to be in direct contact with God refuse to comment on the issue (and for good reason,) and while nobody has ever found any physical evidence for any of the Book of Mormon events in spite of years of searching around the Hill Cumorah, in Mesoamerica, and elsewhere, by the best the Mormon Church could muster.

Finally, we have this from a team of internationally recognized archeologists.

There is nothing in the archaeological record to contradict the assertion that Troy and the surrounding countryside formed the setting for Homer's Iliad in 700 B.C.

The analogous quotation with regard to Zarahemla could read as follows:

There is nothing in the archeological record to support the assertion that Zarahemla ever existed in Mesoamerica or anywhere else on the planet.

[Stormin' Mormon]

The rest of the list could just have easily been made for The Hobbit, Gulliver's Travels, Treasure Island etc.

Actually, I'd love to see someone, anyone, attempt to place the Hobbit in a real-world time and place with the same depth and breadth that Gardner, Sorenson, Poulsen, and others have done with placing the Book of Mormon within a Mesoamerican context.

You can't say it can be easily done until someone actually attempts it.

[Deborah]

NHM constitutes credible physical evidence. The rest of the list could just have easily been made for The Hobbit, Gulliver's Travels, Treasure Island etc.

Ok, make the list, since it's so easily done. I've never seen anyone create a BOM either that can have such a powerful effect on so many people, even though so many talk about how easy it would be.

[Libs]

I'd like to ask a question (this is a sincere question - not meant as a trap or anything like that).

I know there are many LDS scholars who have put a lot of work into looking at evidences for the Book of Mormon. I don't want to sound like I am dismissing or belittling their work. That's not my intention. But, my question is this..

If all of these evidences are such solid evidences that the Book of Mormon is real ancient history, why are there no scholars, outside of the church, interested in this work? Or are there? It is my understanding that there are not, but I could be wrong.

It just seems like, if the evidences were truly that compelling, archaeologists of all stripes would be intensely interested. And, again, perhaps there are some that I just don't know about?

[Brant Gardner]

This list is unfortunate, although I realize that it was well intentioned. There were large cities in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon! And kinship relationships! And literacy! And warfare!

I'm sure that thousands of people could write a novel about a fictional ancient civilization in the Americas, or Africa, or central Asia, or wherever and someone could list such supposed similarities to the known historical reality. There's nothing compelling about your list.

I agree that it is a large list, and I can see why you skipped some rather important details. Let me slow down to one of them. We have the story in the Book of Mormon of two different peoples with two different languages meeting in a river valley around 200 BC. Mesoamerican linguistic history shows the very same thing occurring about 200 BC, including the correct direction for the larger language language (moving south from an older language in the north--also required in the text).

Now, I suppose that you might find lots of languages in river valleys, and even a few that arrived in about 200 BC. However, all of the other aspects of the geography and culture must fit as well. In other words, it isn't just literacy and warfare, it is particuclar types of literacy (actually rather difficult to find in the New World at all) and particular types of military actions.

To add another, we have a very interesting set of economic and political systems in the Book of Mormon. To my knowledge, that combination is not found anywhere else in the New World, but are not only in this area, but at the time period that the Book of Mormon states.

So, your idea of generalization would be correct--if it were a generalization. It isn't. That is the reason that each of these things must rely upon the other. They are all a cohesive set, dependent upon a specific place and a specific time period.

[Wiki Wonka]

I'd like to ask a question (this a sincere question - not meant as a trap or anything like that).

I know there are many LDS scholars who have put a lot of work into looking at evidences for the Book of Mormon. I don't want to sound like I am dismissing or belittling their work. That's not my intention. But, my question is this..

If all of these evidences are such solid evidences that the Book of Mormon is real ancient history, why are there no scholars, outside of the church, interested in this work? Or are there? It is my understanding that there are not, but I could be wrong.

It just seems like, if the evidences were truly that compelling, archaeologists of all stripes would be intensely interested. And, again, perhaps there are some that I just don't know about?

It is because no non-LDS scholar or researcher would ever take seriously a record which is claimed to have been delivered by an angel and translated by a young man. The story of origin is too fantastic for any non-LDS to take seriously as a basis for research. Michael Coe is one of most well-known Mesoamerica scholars, and he simply believes that Joseph Smith made everything up:

Michael D. Coe said in the documentary "The Mormons" (emphasis added):

I really think that Joseph Smith, like shamans everywhere, started out faking it. I have to believe this -- that he didn't believe this at all, that he was out to impress, but he got caught up in the mythology that he created. This is what happens to shamans: They begin to believe they can do these things. It becomes a revelation: They're speaking to God. And I don't think they start out that way; I really do not. ...

More from Dr. Coe:

Of course the basis of it is totally racist -- the idea that Native Americans, the dark-skinned people, could not do this by themselves, and it had to be light-skinned people. That's very much part of what was in Smith's mind at that time. So it was no surprise that he came up with this idea that the Angel Moroni had come to him and told him about these ancient Nephites and Lamanites and Jaredites and so forth. It was all kind of pre-adapted; he was pre-adapted to this, let's say. ...

So tell my why Dr. Coe, or any other non-LDS scholar, would even consider seriously examining the Book of Mormon in relation to Mesoamerica?

WW

[Brant Gardner]

My definition of credible physical evidence was fairly standard and was not narrow by any means. Credible physical evidence would be any appropriately dated physical artifact found in the New World that was specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon and, according to competent neutral third parties, would not have otherwise have been expected to be present in the New World during the period between about 2500 BC and 620 AD.

You were doing very well until you hit the "would not have otherwise been expected" part. Why place that requirement? There is no textual reason that it should, and general historical trends of the movement of populations (particularly into new agricultural/natural resource zones) demonstrates the need to adapt. I spoke with one anthropologist who discussed African metallurgy as a particular group of people moved through various zones. The methods changes with the zones, reflecting where they were more than where they came from. As I said, if you look for the wrong thing and don't find it, what have you learned.

Recalling that Troy was mentioned specifically in the Homer's Iliad along with a description of its relative size and location, let's start with a short passage from an article in "Archeology" (Volume 57 Number 3, May/June 2004) regarding excavations at Troy.

In other words, we have a text that was not accepted as historical that had internal geographic clues. Someone decided to accept those clues and try to match them to a geography. While they might have matched any number of geographies, it was an argument for Troy only when a city was found that met certain characteristics. Is that a fair summary?

Please note that, based on the Iliad and other contemporary written records, archeologists agree on where Troy actually is, which is something that cannot be said for any city in the Book of Mormon. In fact, Mormons can't even agree, to within 3,000 miles or so, on where Zarahemla even might have been.

You have the history just slightly wrong. Most archaeologists did not agree that Troy was there -- until it was found and evidence was presented to link it to the correct location. The argument had to be made and then accepted. It was not accepted prior to the discovery of a site that matched.

That early process is where we are on the Book of Mormon. There is much more varied information to use to locate places, and that process is still occurring. Troy had the advantage of being a single location. The Book of Mormon requires that we find many. At the moment, the geographers are still refining their information and the ethnohistorians building the case. However, there is no inherent difference in the methodology.

So here we have appropriately dated artifacts and even human skeletons from 1180 BC, and they are in the right place and from the right time to have been the basis for the epic battles described by Homer in the Iliad. Please also note that we have independent confirmation that Homer actually existed, which is something that cannot be said for any of the several claimed ancient authors of the BoM.

Precisely. I am surprised that you don't realize that you are building my case for me. A location was found that fit the geography. Then, there was a city, then there was evidence of the right kind of people at the right time. Failing any one of those would disqualify the site as Troy.

However, nothing in Troy every said "This is Troy." There is no archaeological artifact that independently creates the association. It is all interpretation of data. All of it. Yes there is hard evidence. There is archaeology.

For the Book of Mormon, there is archaeology, there are people in the right places at the right times. There are economic systems that are the correct ones for the place and time. There are political systems that are different from any European model, but appropriate to that time and place. There is, perhaps, even better data linking the text of the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerica than there is for Troy. Of course, the fact that it is the Book of Mormon means that many are not interested in looking seriously at the evidence (a fact made worse by some very poor LDS armchair archaeology in the past).

No such confirmatory records exist for Zarahemlah or any other city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Contemporary records exist, to be sure, but they do not mention Zarahemla.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. I'm sure you mean something about the Maya texts, but you appear not to know that all of them post date the Book of Mormon (there is a rare exception, and the largest such text is from San Bartolo in Book of Mormon times--but not a Book of Mormon location, and it cannot be translated yet).

In fact, if one likes the limited geography model, the contemporary Olmec and Mayan records provide a historical narrative, supported by countless appropriately dated physical artifacts including entire cities, that could scarcely be more different from that contained in the Book of Mormon.

You are absolutely incorrect in this statement. There are no Olmec records (there is one disputed possible early text, but it is not agreed to be a text). There are epi-Olmec texts, but very few and, like the Maya, postdate the Book of Mormon for the texts that actually give us very much information. In the region where Zarahemla is posited, it is particularly anionic, and yielding few texts (though one that does provide one of the older dates).

Finally, we have this from a team of internationally recognized archeologists. "There is nothing in the archaeological record to contradict the assertion that Troy and the surrounding countryside formed the setting for Homer's Iliad in 700 B.C."

That is very interesting. Please tell me anything from the Grijalva river valley between 200 BC and AD 400 that contradicts the assertion that Zarahemla was located there.

[Anijen]

I would like to know how in the first place we would recognize and distinguish the difference between a Nephite artifact with that of a Mayan one. If it is Mayan you claim that it is not exclusively Mormon and thus not evidence. I am to complimentary, even if we had the very gold plates the same naysayers would be unimpressed.

[Brant Gardner]

If all of these evidences are such solid evidences that the Book of Mormon is real ancient history, why are there no scholars, outside of the church, interested in this work? Or are there? It is my understanding that there are not, but I could be wrong.

The reasons range widely. Every once in a while the reasons are based on some actual interaction with LDS scholars--but even then it tends to be the older work, not the most recent stuff. In most cases, the dismissal occurs based on the presumption of what the arguments must be. In other words, they haven't been interested enough to even look at the evidence.

[Brant Gardner]

Please explain how Nephi's inclusion of Isaiah 29 is credible evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Your question was not related to the point being made, but since the point I was making was hardly clear, I cannot blame you for that. The interesting issue for Isaiah is that although it follows the King James Version language, it does not follow King James Version chapters (in the 1830 edition--it does after Pratt changed them in 1879). In the 1830 version, the chapter breaks follow conceptual units defined by inquit statements. Gee has a paper on that subject.

As to your specific question, since it isn't a point I make, or attempt to make, I shan't try to respond.

[Stormin' Mormon]

You were doing very well until you hit the "would not have otherwise been expected" part. Why place that requirement?

Brant makes a good point here. 44Foxtrot has created a definition that is IMPOSSIBLE to satisfy.

If the Book of Mormon people were real, then they left behind artifacts. If archeologists have performed study in the region where they lived, then they have found those artifacts, and thus are totally expecting to find more such artifacts. If no studies have been preformed in the region, then Archeologists don't have any preconceptions about the kinds of artifacts that might be found.

I suspect that this criteria is simply an attempt to short circuit a deeper discussion.

[Mortal Man]

The interesting issue for Isaiah is that although it follows the King James Version language, it does not follow King James Version chapters

The same is true for VotH. Why is this remarkable, given that the original manuscript didn't even have punctuation?

How do you account for the Deutero-Isaiah chapters? According to your colleague, they were given in advance to Nephi to help him through the Arabian desert. Is that your position as well?

Why did Nephi need to read to his brethren off the brass plates about going forth from Babylon and fleeing the Chaldeans?

[cdowis]

How do you account for the Deutero-Isaiah chapters?

A quick answer to a quickie question is that this is a hypothesis based on flawed assumptions. The BOM gives us absolute evidence that this is a false theory, since these chapters are contained within its text. I would assert that the theory itself is on trial, rather than the BOM.

You must either disprove the BOM as an ancient text, or prove the theory correct with ancient manuscripts that are missing these chapters.

Textual analysis proves nothing, it's just evidence, even as I can present evidence for the BOM.

If you don't like this answer, begin a new thread with your case for this theory and let's see what you got.

[Brant Gardner]

The same is true for VotH. Why is this remarkable, given that the original manuscript didn't even have punctuation, much less verse or chapter divisions?

You appear to have missed Skousen's analysis of the chapter divisions. His study of the manuscript indicates that the chapter divisions are original. You are correct that sentences and paragraphs are not.

[Pahoran]

The same is true for VotH. Why is this remarkable, given that the original manuscript didn't even have punctuation, much less verse or chapter divisions?

Just FYI: Most of the Isaiah verses quoted in VOTH are not quoted in The Book of Mormon. Most of the Isaiah verses quoted in The Book of Mormon are not quoted in VOTH. The actual overlap between them falls smack within the expected range that would be produced by any two books quoting Isaiah independently.

Regards,

Pahoran

[poulsenll]

If all of these evidences are such solid evidences that the Book of Mormon is real ancient history, why are there no scholars, outside of the church, interested in this work? Or are there? It is my understanding that there are not, but I could be wrong.

Let me call to mind a very important issue related to this question. Archeologists, like all scientists, must have funding to carry out research projects. Funding is controlled by granting agencies. No matter what the interests of an individual scientist, in order to get grants they must coincide with the interests of the granting agency. Granting agencies are usually directed and controlled by well established workers in the field and if these people do not feel there is a possibility of sucsess then no money. The amount of money available for archeological research is very limited, much more so than in other sciences and the number of sites available to investigat is so large that the money usually goes to work at well established large sites rather than the small sites found in the areas that have been proposed for the BofM.

Although Book of Mormon archeology is of great interest to Mormons and Mormon critics, sadly it is of little interest to most of the world.

Larry P

Larry P

[Mortal Man]

In the 1830 version, the chapter breaks follow conceptual units defined by inquit statements.

Chapter VI begins with an introduction to Isaiah 48. Nephi transitions to reading the brass plates thus: "For after this manner hath the prophet written: Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,..." which is exactly where KJV-Isaiah chapter 48 begins. Nephi then reads exactly two KJV chapters and finishes his reading of the brass plates thus:

"...and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob.

Chapter VII

And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, after that I had read these things which were engraven upon the plates of brass..."

The end of chapter VI in the 1830 BoM coincides with the end chapter 49 in KJV-Isaiah. This seems to undermine your thesis.

[Libs]

It is because no non-LDS scholar or researcher would ever take seriously a record which is claimed to have been delivered by an angel and translated by a young man. The story of origin is too fantastic for any non-LDS to take seriously as a basis for research. Michael Coe is one of most well-known Mesoamerica scholars, and he simply believes that Joseph Smith made everything up:

Michael D. Coe said in the documentary "The Mormons" (emphasis added):

More from Dr. Coe:

So tell my why Dr. Coe, or any other non-LDS scholar, would even consider seriously examining the Book of Mormon in relation to Mesoamerica?

WW

Thank you for the article. That was very interesting. I hadn't seen it.

Do you mind if I ask you a personal question? Are you LDS? Isn't FAIRwiki a site run by active LDS? I'm a little confused.

[Scott Gordon]

I'd like to ask a question (this is a sincere question - not meant as a trap or anything like that).

I know there are many LDS scholars who have put a lot of work into looking at evidences for the Book of Mormon. I don't want to sound like I am dismissing or belittling their work. That's not my intention. But, my question is this..

If all of these evidences are such solid evidences that the Book of Mormon is real ancient history, why are there no scholars, outside of the church, interested in this work? Or are there? It is my understanding that there are not, but I could be wrong.

It just seems like, if the evidences were truly that compelling, archaeologists of all stripes would be intensely interested. And, again, perhaps there are some that I just don't know about?

It would be difficult for a scholar to even know enough about the Book of Mormon to know if they should be interested or not. I remember going to a major museum where they described the Book of Mormon as the story of the 10 lost tribes--which it is not.

Mormons are just now starting to hit the national press as something other than an anomaly. Maybe as the church matures there will be more interest. They just started the first Mormon studies program at Claremont.

There was a story in the Church news a few years ago about a two respected meso-American Archeologists joining the church. And there-in is the problem. While they might have been somewhat convincing for some of our message board debaters before, now they are LDS scholars and therefore have no credibility.

There are a number of well respected scholars who accept the Book of Mormon. To only accept the witness of a non-LDS scholar is somewhat unfair. We do have people every day--including scholars--looking at the Book of Mormon. Some of them join the church. It's called our missionary program.

If you want to look at some of the LDS scholars, you can check out http://mormonscholarstestify.org/ Many of them on that web page are very well respected outside of the LDS church.

[Libs]

The reasons range widely. Every once in a while the reasons are based on some actual interaction with LDS scholars--but even then it tends to be the older work, not the most recent stuff. In most cases, the dismissal occurs based on the presumption of what the arguments must be. In other words, they haven't been interested enough to even look at the evidence.

I see. Are any of the LDS archaeological studies, around the Book of Mormon, written up in professional journals or anything like that? Or is it pretty much contained at BYU?

[Libs]

It would be difficult for a scholar to even know enough about the Book of Mormon to know if they should be interested or not. I remember going to a major museum where they described the Book of Mormon as the story of the 10 lost tribes--which it is not.

Mormons are just now starting to hit the national press as something other than an anomaly. Maybe as the church matures there will be more interest. They just started the first Mormon studies program at Claremont.

There was a story in the Church news a few years ago about a two respected meso-American Archeologists joining the church. And there-in is the problem. While they might have been somewhat convincing for some of our message board debaters before, now they are LDS scholars and therefore have no credibility.

There are a number of well respected scholars who accept the Book of Mormon. To only accept the witness of a non-LDS scholar is somewhat unfair. We do have people every day--including scholars--looking at the Book of Mormon. Some of them join the church. It's called our missionary program.

If you want to look at some of the LDS scholars, you can check out http://mormonscholarstestify.org/ Many of them on that web page are very well respected outside of the LDS church.

Thank you, Scott. I have been following the Mormon Scholars testimonies, of late, and found at least one of them very interesting.

I think it is somewhat fair to expect some acknowledgement from outside sources, because if the work is truly pointing towards a "Book of Mormon people" that should be of interest to a lot of scientists, not just LDS...shouldn't it?

I realize a lot of very intelligent people are in the church, but that's true for most religions. You will find many very intelligent people in all of them. Most religion is primarily based on faith (as you know). People can accept a lot of amazing and even questionable things, based on faith in their chosen religion.

[Bernard Gui]

I think it is somewhat fair to expect some acknowledgement from outside sources, because if the work is truly pointing towards a "Book of Mormon people" that should be of interest to a lot of scientists...

Non-LDS cannot give an inch to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It is simply impossible for them to entertain the notion of angels and gold plates and visions. It will never happen. Their only option is to oppose it no matter what evidence is provided.

Bernard

[Wiki Wonka]

Thank you for the article. That was very interesting. I hadn't seen it.

Do you mind if I ask you a personal question? Are you LDS? Isn't FAIRwiki a site run by active LDS? I'm a little confused.

Yes, I'm active LDS and also a member of FAIR. I'm one of the editors of the FAIR Wiki (in fact, the only reason I continue to use the pseudonym "Wiki Wonka" is because it describes my function within FAIR).

WW

Edited to add: BTW, Scott Gordon (who you were talking with a couple of posts earlier) is President of FAIR.

[Libs]

Yes, I'm active LDS and also a member of FAIR. I'm one of the editors of the FAIR Wiki (in fact, the only reason I continue to use the pseudonym "Wiki Wonka" is because it describes my function within FAIR).

WW

Edited to add: BTW, Scott Gordon (who you were talking with a couple of posts earlier) is President of FAIR.

Oh really? Thanks, I didn't know that (about Scott)...and thank you for telling me about yourself.

When you wrote:

It is because no non-LDS scholar or researcher would ever take seriously a record which is claimed to have been delivered by an angel and translated by a young man. The story of origin is too fantastic for any non-LDS to take seriously as a basis for research. Michael Coe is one of most well-known Mesoamerica scholars, and he simply believes that Joseph Smith made everything up:

I thought maybe you were anti-mormon!

I think my questions are answered, for now, so I'm going to leave this discussion.

Thank you to all who responded to my posts. It's much appreciated.

[Scott Gordon]

Thank you, Scott. I have been following the Mormon Scholars testimonies, of late, and found at least one of them very interesting.

I think it is somewhat fair to expect some acknowledgement from outside sources, because if the work is truly pointing towards a "Book of Mormon people" that should be of interest to a lot of scientists, not just LDS...shouldn't it?

I realize a lot of very intelligent people are in the church, but that's true for most religions. You will find many very intelligent people in all of them. Most religion is primarily based on faith (as you know). People can accept a lot of amazing and even questionable things, based on faith in their chosen religion.

You are correct about very intelligent people in other religions. I had a great conversation with some brilliant Muslim's the other day.

The Book of Mormon has a unique problem. One can accept the historicity of the Bible, without accepting God. In other words, one can believe there was a Jesus, a Peter, a Paul, and believe that they founded a new religion and believed in it. But that doesn't mean you have to believe in God. You only have to believe that they believed. There is no physical evidence that Jesus was ever resurrected.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was given to Joseph Smith by an angel. Joseph did not have the capacity to translate it, and yet he did. So if you accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you are also accepting the existence of God and Angels.

As for evidences, there have been some unique and interesting discoveries in the old world that support the Book of Mormon. I happen to be a fan of Lehi's trail and of NHM. From everything I have read, I don't believe Joseph Smith could have known those things, and yet he got them right. There are several other things that Joseph Smith got right. Many of them have been debated on this message board. There is a bias not to believe them, because to accept one of the evidences is to say that God really does live.

It is quite an interesting problem.