Why should we believe Mormonism's one and only source? The content of the Bible enjoys the benefit of what historians call "multiple independent attestation." that is, the events, people and places recorded in the Bible very often are represented in multiple and frequently unrelated sources, (literary, physical artifacts, verified locations, etc.).
What this means is that even if the bible were never written, many of the people, places and events recorded in its pages would still be documented or represented for us in the plethora of diverse types of evidence from history.
The simple fact is, many of the people, places and events recorded in the Bible are deeply and inexorably woven into the fabric of history itself and thus, as one might expect, those people, places and events were observed, recorded and represented in many places from many different points of view. I mention this here to provide an example of commonly recognized reality that stands in strong, even stark, glaring CONTRAST to the claims of Mormonism.
So what is different about the claims of Mormonism?
The entire body of Mormonism, 100% of its "scriptural" content (apart from its borrowings from the Bible) is fully and exclusively traceable to and or dependent upon exactly and only one source; the claims of one man--Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith ALONE.
He is the single, sole source of the Mormon "revelation." That means that if Joseph Smith had never been born, we would have no knowledge of any portion of the LDS "revelation," its "scripture" and its supposed "restoration." We would have no reason nor any other source from which to derive any reason to think that any portion of the "Mormon" scriptures, (such as the Book of Mormon, the so-called "Book of Abraham," or the D&C) would have ever even existed let alone have any reason to believe their content.
Therefore it is reasonable to ask, why should we believe him since there is exactly nothing in Mormonism's unique claims that would have ever been even mentioned on earth if Smith had never been born.
1.) If the BoM civilizations really did at least exist, where are the multiple lines of evidence that would necessarily indicate this? Why should we not expect to see multiple lines of evidence supporting the simple existence of these vast civilizations? It is certainly true that all other large ancient civilizations left an abundance of diverse evidence of themselves. It's even true of MANY tiny little tribes. Why do the claims of Mormonism require or deserve special pleading?
2.) What is the evidence to suggest, much less confirm that the Egyptians buried their dead with copies of the "Book of Abraham?" Why would 1st Century Egyptians bury their dead with tomes by and about the Jewish patriarch Abraham instead of burying their dead with the funeral documents and magical incantations of the afterlife in accordance with the tenets of their OWN Kemite religion? Where is there any evidence to suggest that they did so?
I want to know if there is any reason to actually think the man was simply telling the TRUTH, since he alone is the one and only source for all of the claims that distinguish the LDS religion from historically orthodox, biblical Christianity.
I am asking you to show me some lines of evidence that connect the historical, linguistic and supposedly prophetic claims of Joseph Smith to the real world. Without some of that evidence, other Christians will see no grounds for even considering the Book of Mormon and other LDS texts to possibly be divinely inspired.