As I have been researching and studying the LDS Church, I have found that there are some sites and anti-mormon literature out there that makes some huge claims against the LDS church. This hub is basically going to look at some of the most frequent that I ran across and give some good links that look at the other side of the issue. Now, I'm not saying this about all of the sites that I ran into, but I found a large number of the anti-mormon sites that would only publish partial quotes and took things out of context a lot. I thought that was a little off. Here's my attempt.

So, one of the main themes I have heard in doing my research is that Joseph Smith could have stolen the themes and ideas to come up with writing the Book of Mormon. The top sources that anti mormons have said that he has stolen from was, in no particular order:

View of the Hebrews

Shakespeare

King James Bible

Spaulding Manuscript

George Whitefield

The Golden Pot

James Adair, author of A History of the American Indians

1 and 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

The best page that I have found that combats all of these on one page is found at Jefflindsay.com. Another great source is found at Greater Things.

I liked the fact at Greater things that on this page Dr. Ridenhour gives two assignments that show how hard it would be for anyone to plagiarize and write the Book of Mormon.

There are several other sources that refute the plagiarizing theories you can find them in the links section.

Okay, so by now many people have probably heard about the bishop that left the LDS church because of DNA evidence that he suggests proves that the Church is not true.

Here is a basic summary of the DNA view from the anti mormons:

"The Book of Mormon has come under heavy fire from critics in light of DNA evidence that is said to refute the Book of Mormon, for the evidence points to Asiatic origins, not Middle Eastern origins of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. Since "everyone knows" that the Book of Mormon teaches that ancient Middle Easterners were the primary ancestors of modern Native Americans, doesn't their Asiatic heritage destroy any case for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon? Absolutely yes, according to many of our critics. (Lindsay)"

That quick recap gives you the basis of their arguments...Now you can read the most up to date information on the debate here:

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/MisguidedF.html

http://bookofmormonevidence.org/

http://www.greaterthings.com/Book_of_Mormon/DNA/index.html

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=97ca39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

And this list could go on and on. Please when researching anti-mormon claims look at the other side of the issue as well. These are very well documented works and give a good insight to the whole issue.

Many critics of the LDS church often bring up the naming of plants and animals in the Book of Mormon as evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Critics of the church say that if there were horses, sheep, elephants, etc there should be archaelogocial evidence to confirm that they were in that place during that time period. Here is a good article to get you started on some heavy duty reading.

("Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring and Fall 1993, p. 194):

Other sites that deal with the plants and animals in the Book of Mormon are found here:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129

http://jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml#naming

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/bookofmormon/051114horses.html

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml

This list could also go on and on. Please read any of the above and you'll see that the claim that horses were not here are far from conclusive.