Pale.Emperor » But for all that... you'd think they'd at least find a sword or an arrow head or a Nephite/Lamanite pot or something. All those people and battles?
You're absolutely correct.
Book of Mormon archeology is one of the most fascinating aspects of the Book of Mormon and there's considerable evidence that the events described therein occurred in Mesoamerica, not the northern part of what is now the United States.
Although there's a very vocal LDS group that disagrees, the Book of Mormon appears to take place in a tropical setting. There's no mention of snow, crossing frozen rivers, casualties from exposure. It also appears in an area of volcanic activity. In one case, poisonous serpents prevent travel through a narrow stop of land for five years. This would be impossible in a land where there was snow and ice. The Mexican people, however, have traditions of areas populated with such serpents. In one case, they directed immigrants into an afflicted area hoping they would perish (so as not to pose a future threat to them). Unfortunately for the existing population, the immigrants were snake eaters, and they soon cleaned the area of the fire snakes and they thrived and eventually conquered them.
You can read more about some of the research being done at http://www.bmaf.org/articles_list.
LisaRose » The book of Mormon is a joke, full of anachronisms and errors. Large portions of it were copied from the King James Bible. In fact, errors that existed in the King James bible of the time were replicated by Joseph Smith, which would be expected if he just made the whole thing up, but hard to explain if it was actually dictated by God.
Sounds like you've been reading anti-Mormon stuff. The people who write it are completely unqualified to evaluate the Book of Mormon because they're not archeologists, anthroplogists, geologists or historians. And when people say the types of things you say, it's clear the criticisms are not theirs, but the published views of others.
So what kind of anachronisms and errors?
I frankly don't know why the Lord used the King James translation, though I have some personal theories. The bottom line is that it's a translation, and Joseph Smith didn't use conventional means of translation. The only thing we have to answer is, is it a correct translation? Yes, if it was translated by the gift and power of God. Given the translation process, it would have been difficult to do a word for word copy and, indeed, parts of the Isaiah passages quoted by Nephi bear more of a resemblance to the Septuagint in critical places. The Book of Mormon also employs complex chiasms, an ancient style of writing found in both Hebrew and Mayan. It was virtually unknown in 1830.
For those who are interested in the evidences for the Book of Mormon, check these videos out.