The Book of Mormon is probably a creative artifact from Joseph Smith.

It appears a game of Gish Gallop is afoot. 1. Chiasmus Since you claim the linked verse as the outstanding example let's begin. A chiasm is a literary technique designed to mirror e.g. ABBA. To start, it has been noted that Alma 36 is not a true chiasm - it does not follow the strict rules required to be formally recognised as 'this is a correct chiasm'. It contains phrases that under strict chiasmic rules would break the pattern e.g. the usage of "born of God" is ignored until it creates the supposed chiasm chain. Correct technique would consider this "broken chiasm". Including the necessity for the claim to include multiple verses as the one chiasmic 'piece' (e.g. v 6-9), it's easy to see a distinct problem arising. [1] An example of a Shakespearean chiasm that doesn't break such rules can be found below alongside a more detailed discussion of chiasmus for those interested: http://findarticles.com... I would suggest readers compare this to my opponent's example http://scriptures.lds.org... It is quite easy to see the clumsy nature of the BOM writing - the repetition and large length of the verses make it a rough attempt (if designed) and easier to create patterns where none were intended (if not designed - more probable). For example - the final verse, the claimed chiasmic structure is simply a tacked on phrase at the end. See [1] for the example given when using BOM rules for how easy it is to find chiasms in texts. Additionally BYU (Mormon aligned) statistical analysis of chiasmic structures found no evidence to conclude that such chiasms were indicative of divine design. [2] Chiasmic structure (following same rough rules) occurs in Smith's D & C (not a claimed divine text) - making it more probable it is simply an artifact of Smith's writing than not. [3] 2. Archaeological findings. Since you claim a single one here, it is easily refuted. The artifacts in question are known fakes. They do not accurately resemble known Egyptian artifacts but do however resemble other known frauds of that era. [4] 3. Arrows. The claim is that Smith would not have dictated a particular phrase given the time. Firstly archery clubs were in existence in N.A. at the time - United Bowmen of Philadelphia formed in the late 1820s - however it is more probable that knowledge, since that is your claim, came from Native Americans who *did* use bows at that time to hunt. It is however just as likely that it is a meaningless artifact of wishful thinking. Bows go with arrows. The passage really doesn't indicate anything special. [5] 4. Prophesy The passage from Ezekiel details nothing of the sort. Ezekiel's prophecy refers to Israel once being a united nation i.e. one stick represents Judah and Israel respectively. Additionally the Hebrew word used is never used as a metaphor, and always as translated, stick e.g. "I have not a cake, but a handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruise [pitcher]: and, behold I am gathering two *sticks*, that I may go in and dress [prepare] it for me and my son, that we may eat it and die." Another case of fanciful imagining. [6] 5. Impossibility spiel. Despite the claims of impossibility there is little actually argued that it is; there is simply a list. When we look at it from the 'it was a fake' side we can see that none of the list adds merit. Staring into a hat ... while Smith behind a closed off partition no one had access to doesn't validate Con's case. Making up stories is not particularly stressful nor challenging, especially when one consider the content (e.g. "and it came to pass" occurs over 1200 times), wooden submarines (Ether 2:6-25) etc. His education was enough for him to write (journals, letters, books) though not well - linguistic errors abound in his personal correspondences and the initial BOM.. 380 words claim appears to be the list of proper nouns 'unknown' at the time. A list of them, their biblical counterparts, and a short explanation of Smith's KJV can be found at [7]. Unfortunately character limits are approaching so I only have room for one argument. Literary analysis of the BOM shows some telling signs that Smith copied large portions of it where it was not referenced so, and tellingly how this goes against the claim it was a divine text of ancient language. We also have record of the prevailing view of the time just after Smith's death. "Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God"[8] There are quite a few issues with this. Misspellings were common (and similarly in Smith's journal and letters) and needed to be corrected (as were most errors listed here) in later editions e.g. tempels (for temples; Alma 16:13); eigth (for eighth; Alma 53:23); rereward (for rearward; 3 Nephi 20:42; 21:29). Grammar concerns also; "They did not fight against God no more" (Alma 23:7); "I have wrote to them" (3 Nephi 26:8); "the gates of hell is..." (3 Nephi 18:13). Redundancies such as behold and thereof occur often; as well as colloquialisms; "a" alongside adjectives e.g. "a journeying", "a pointing" which were from the vernacular of his time. Smith's errors also included the adding new words e.g. "preparator" (for preparer; 1 Nephi 15:35); "numerority" (for a vast number; Alma 56:10). It doesn't end there however. Smith "translates" an ancient text to include other modern vernacular not from the time he claimed the plates were from. Smith's work also included "adieu" (a french word in circulation) as well as "cimeter" a word whose origins are from middle eastern literature of Mohammed's time. He uses the word Bible too, which is an English rendering of a Greek word (biblos) that didn't occur till at least 1500 years post claim (similarly the usage of alpha and omega, and the Latin word Lucifer - also all from the KJV). On a similar note, Smith, despite apparently having divine translation, leaves the KJV word "raca" intact - untranslated due to lack of appropriate information in the KJV. Smith's work includes text from the KJV however this book is from the early 1600s. Smith used italicised text in parts form the KJV, which were italicised precisely to denote a non translated aspect of the text e.g. Mosiah, uses all eleven of the italicised words from the KJV. Verb tenses also appear to have confused Smith (or he didn't notice). For instance Mosiah 4:22 reads "and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done." - the correct form would be "which ye have done". Multiple instances of this occur. [9][10][11][12][13] The evidence is indeed damning that the text is both not divinely written, nor divinely translated, nor indeed form the time claimed. In short, the probability that the BOM is indeed a creation of Joseph Smith is high. [1] http://www.lds-mormon.com... [2] Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance? Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards [3] http://www.greaterthings.com... [4] http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu... [5] http://www.britannica.com... [6] http://www.irr.org... [7] http://www.lds-mormon.com... [8] Journal of Oliver Huntington. [9] Abanes, Richard (2003). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Thunder's Mouth Press [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://www.lds-mormon.com... [12] http://www.infidels.org... [13] http://www.2think.org...