One of my favorite websites.
It's not a church website, but the articles are by defenders of the faith. I find the best and most updated, and most logical arguments for and against the Book of Mormon.
One of my favorites is:
Today I read through this one and I very much enjoyed it.
The best point made is the framing of how to look at the archeology/science and how it matches with the Book of Mormon. When I was very young, I remember doing some research, and I was disappointed to find that much of the science didn't support the details of the Book of Mormon. It didn't deter my faith, but it deterred my ambition to continue my research in finding the historical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.
Now that I'm older, and understand science much better, and understand how we acquire knowledge, I do know and understand that science is a moving target. History is a challenge, just the author points out, even in modern times, we can not definitively say who killed JFK, or whether or not O.J. did it. That goes to show you how it's foolish to make blanketed and absolute statements about events that occurred 2,000 years ago.
The origins of the Book of Mormon are scientifically unprovable. It's authorship is miraculous no matter which angle you look at it from the side of a believer, or from the the side of a critic. As a believer it's a claim that an angel gave the ancient record to Joseph Smith and he translated it by the power of God. As a critic or non-believer, it's miraculous because Joseph Smith didn't have the knowledge or the skill to conjure up such a vivid and detailed account of an area so unknown and familiar to anyone at the time.
People often fail to comprehend that at the time of Joseph Smith, the perception was that Indians were a very primitive people that knew nothing more than to be nomads and live in tepees and roam the plains in chase of game. They certainly incapable of having ever built great civilizations and cities, with roads and houses made of concrete, let alone large temples. The idea was preposterous when it was written by the young uneducated farm boy in the 1820's.
Again, impossible no matter which angle you look at it.
And so it goes, science can no sooner prove the Book of Mormon than it can DISprove it. The best way to analyze it is to look at the trend as mentioned in the latter article. The question to ask if you're a critic is:
Over time, does the Book of Mormon become more believable with regards to scientific discovery and evidence? Or does it become more preposterous?
If it's true, evidence should support it's claims. If it's a hoax, it should become more and more preposterous.