I just recently encountered an article by Greg Trimble, "So . . . You think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud?" While I accept the authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, I was shocked at the lack of scholarship and intellectual integrity in this article.
For instance, Trimble asks the following:
"If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?"
This is not true--not by a long shot. The context of Ezek 37 and the Doctrine and Covenants itself, precludes an identification of the Book of Mormon with the Stick of Joseph. I have discussed this issue here. Trimble offers no exegesis whatsoever, showing that he has no skills in the historical-grammatical method of exegesis. Further, most LDS scholars do not equate the stick of Joseph with the Book of Mormon (see Kevin Barney's post here).
Trimble also poses this question:
Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?
There are also volumes by non-LDS authors arguing for geocentricity (e.g., the multi-volume works of Robert Sungenis)--should we accept geocentricity? This is an utterly inane "argument."
More importantly, however, is that the majority of LDS scholars do not associate Quetzalcoatl with Jesus. Brant Gardner, a leading Book of Mormon scholar, has an entire essay refuting this in vol. 4 of Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon; a prior incarnation of this article is his article, "The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl." This is a piece of so-called "evidence" that should be retired by LDS apologists.
As Latter-day Saints, we should try our best to be as intellectual honest and rigorous in our defence of the Restored Gospel—articles such as Trimble’s, apart from lacking intellectual integrity, gives the impression to many readers that LDS are incapable of mounting a meaningful defence of their position, in this instance, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
