I'm glad that more and more is coming out to support the events of the Bible. And I really don't care, but am also glad that as time goes, the Book of Mormon is being established by science, not destroyed. Note: lack of evidence means nothing...in the 1840's, the Book of Mormon was criticized because:
1. No one ever heard of records preserved on metal plates
2. American Indians didn't work with cement, and they didn't have large stone cities.
3. Swords couldn't be 'stained'
4. The area couldn't sustain the populations described in the BoM
5. Some practices mentioned are too bizarre..like collecting the limbs of falling enemies and taking them to a king, or why would women and children think themselves murderers, why would burying weapons of war keep one from digging them up and using them?
6. No one, that early on, could build a ship that would sail that distance.
and more...
1. Metal plates, and stone boxes (like the one JS found the plates in) have been found.
2. they did and they did
3. 'swords' were made using flint embedded in wood..which can stain, and can easily chop limbs
4. Tierra Preta...wiki it...a man made, created my man around 480BC and used until 950 AD. Matches the BoM account of Nephites cultivating the ground and becoming very prosperous....oh..Tierra Preta is the most fertile ground on earth and its a mystery...using the vast fields of it could easily sustain the populations in the BoM
5. Such practices were normal in the time period and culture..to prove your victory. At the same time, in the BoM, where the women and children thought themselves awful murderers, public human sacrifice was practiced and participated by women and children. That entire BoM population of repenting people relocated to another area...why? maybe to get away from the human sacrificing culture they used to belong to.
6. Some old school Columbus Archeologists are still stubborn but its pretty much becoming mainstream knowlegde that Pre-Columbus sailors hit the shores of America