...and now a comment or two.

(Read the first part of this post here)

I've always been amazed at the number of Church members who keep themselves on the sidelines because they...just...can't...get...past...the reason issue. ("I'd love to believe in the Book of Mormon, and I will...just as soon as I see a scientific journal article that proves it's really a record of people in the ancient Americas.)

(See my initial discussion on reason here...)

The rules seem to be different for the Book of Mormon than with other religious principles, presumably because it is a tangible object. Should they be, though? I mean, where's the archaelogical evidence that God exists and that he created the Earth? Where's the scientific proof that Jesus was resurrected after being crucified...or that he even walked the earth at all?

FARMS, among other groups, has 'proven' the Book of Mormon is accurate scientifically in a number of ways (or at least 'disproven' the notion of Joseph Smith creating it out of his head)...but it's still not enough for some. As the saying goes, "To a believer, no further proof is necessary...to an unbeliever, no further proof will ever suffice."

Here's the problem: The Book of Mormon exists--that's an indisputable fact. Since you can't argue its non-existence (like you can for God), any argument that says the Book of Mormon is not what it is claimed to be (an ancient record of early Christians translated by the power of God by Joseph Smith) must also provide a substitute theory for its existence--and that argument must be fully supported by ALL of the same means of analysis you used to 'disprove' the original story. If it doesn't, it's incomplete...and in fact no better than the original story you couldn't 'prove' in the first place. You can suggest other ideas for the source of the Book of Mormon (Joseph Smith copied it from some other source, he was mentally ill and/or delusional, etc...) but then those theories have to stand up to the same kind of analysis you used to determine the original theory wasn't acceptable. If NO theory can be created that can't be attacked rationally and scientifically in the same way--then doesn't that suggest that our means of determining 'truth' and 'falsehood' are flawed?

You'll find most people who don't accept either the Book of Mormon or the Church as a whole as 'true' don't offer any kind of alternate theory on what IS true, instead. The reasons are obvious--any detailed theory they presented as 'the truth' would get torn down immediately, using the same standards of proof they've been using to tear down the original theory. It's far easier to argue something ISN'T true, than to argue it IS. "Anti-" groups are well-named because they're not FOR anything--the purpose is to lead people away from point A, not towards point B. Yet, any argument that says X isn't true, must be able to present Y instead--or else the veracity of the argument against X is called into question.

Myself, I see Joseph Smith as exactly parallel to the story of Gideon in the Old Testament (see Judges 7). Israel had 22,000 men, but the Lord pared them down to 300--specifically, so no one could argue that they beat the Midianites on their own merits (theoretically possible with 22,000--but certainly not with only 300).
Had the Book of Mormon been produced by a learned scholar of Ancient Languages at some university, it would have been possible (although still unlikely) that he would have had the experience and the knowledge to create it from scratch. That it came from a poor farmboy with an 8th grade education was on purpose--to remove the possibility of being a human creation entirely out of the picture. (Not that people don't say that anyway, just like they undoubtedly did in Gideon's time as well...)

So, in conclusion--if you don't want to believe in the Book of Mormon, that's fine. Just ask yourself:
(1) What standards of proof am I using in making that decision,
(2) Am I using those standards for ALL my religious beliefs. If not, why not?
and (3) Is there an alternate explanation that does satisfy those same standards? If not, does this suggest my standards of proof are, at the very least, incomplete?