Then, when we get anything approaching even a pale copy of it, we say the exact opposite.

I disagree. There are lots of different people, and lots of different squeaky wheels. The people who wanted a bit more freewheeling are not complaining when we see the too rare pale copy.

Your right I do but the so called burden isn’t as great as you and others purport it to be.

It would be completely different if the claim was that thousands of Jews moved here but because the amount of people that moved here was quite a small amount then that greatly decreases the burden.

“Would a handful of people moving from the middle east to somewhere on the American continent cause a noticeable dent that would be recognized by experts today?”

Probably not. But according to modern secular standards (which are the only standards that I regard to be valid), I don’t bear the burden of proving that the Lamanites and Nephites didn’t exist. You bear the burden of proving that they did.

The bottom line: you and many other LDS apologists are simply using a different set of standards and methods that are far outside mainstream secular inquiry. It is delusional to think that methodological trends in modern secular scholarship would support a historical BoM.

“The question at hand was whether you could establish the probability and likelihood of a historical BoM by using modern secular methods of inquiry. And you have conceded that you cannot. ”

I haven’t conceded yet because I won’t pretend that I am aware of or know ALL of the secular methods out there that are employed. A lot of the issues that you have presented to me are expected results.

I will describe again what I described earlier which you wrote off simply as apologist stuff….Would a handful of people moving from the middle east to somewhere on the American continent cause a noticeable dent that would be recognized by experts today?

I’ll take this as a no to my question. NOW it is finally apparent that we were in agreement the entire time (you could have saved a lot of mental energy by more carefully reading what I was saying from the get-go). Our side discussion never was over the question of whether or not the BoM is historical and true. Clearly, according to your method(s), it is and according to the methods that I find to be of value, it isn’t. The question at hand was whether you could establish the probability and likelihood of a historical BoM by using modern secular methods of inquiry. And you have conceded that you cannot. I fully agree. Now as to the question of the validity of these methods in establishing truth, that is a discussion for another day.

I don’t worship the world of secular scholarship that you obv do.

I think that secular scholarship knows a lot but in no way do they know all or are the end all be all of knowledge.

I’m not dodging anything I’m just not addressing them in the precise manner in which you want me to.

Understand the difference?

I’m confused as to why your confused. I said nothing about history. I am simply refuting your assertions that the Book of Mormon could not in any way be possibly be true because of x, y, and z.

The book of Mormon isn’t a history book. It says as much within its text. None of the writers are geographers.

That being said I believe that Nahom provides the archeology that detractors as yourself like to suggest doesn’t exist for the Book of Mormon.