Trouble with The Book of Mormon

Bear with me, folks. Here is a comment from someone who watched one of my videos on youtube:

"did you notice foot notes in their bible that go to the book of Mormon. Did you know that Book of Mormon is copy right out of bible. For expamle Mosiash in the book of mormon copy for word for word in isaiah. the Mormon church is not christian. I know because I'm former mormon."

I just copied and pasted it. That's right; apparently this individual, whose name appears to be Former Mormon (an incredible example of foresight on the part of his/her parents if he/she was once a member of the Mormon Church), is an expert in the area of Book of Mormon studies. After all, they are really familiar with the book of Mosiash--that cleverly hidden book stuffed in the middle of the index of their copy (at least, that's where it must be inasmuch as any copy of the Book of Mormon I've seen contains no book of "Mosiash").

I think I will respond to some of the arguments presented here in my next video, but for the sake of sanity I want to at least address one element here. And to do so I'll quote from a review of a book by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Uncovering the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon. Tom Nibley, son of famed LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, wrote the review which can be read on the website http://farms.byu.edu. After a lengthy review he includes this sentence in the last paragraph:

"They spend many pages trying to prove that because the Bible has many things in it that are not in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be what it claims to be and then spend many more pages trying to prove that because there are many things in the Bible that are in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be what it claims to be."

Thus he draws the paradox that the Book of Mormon finds itself in when it comes to a large majority of critics of the Church, and to Former Mormon in particular. At least, this is what I can assume. Former Mormon does not like the Book of Mormon because of the chapters that are quoted from the Bible; never mind that those Biblical passages each come in a context within the Book of Mormon in which they play crucial roles for those who are unabashedly quoting them. To Former Mormon, the Mormon Church is not Christian because one of its sacred books contains too much that is similar to the Holy Bible. So our hypothesis should then be, that in order for a book to be considered sacred to Former Mormon, it should not bear any resemblance in any of its passages whatsoever to the Bible--Old or New Testament.

Ah! But I assume that our friend, Former Mormon, would take exception to this though. Because they likely believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And if any book is going to purport to be sacred, it had better well smack of Bible stuff!

Actually, maybe I'm all wrong here, and maybe these critics are simply suffering from the syndrome Nephi describes in 2 Nephi 29. God has said all that He has to say. He's done all that He intended to do. We need no more Bible or revelation.

That's a wonderful thought now, isn't it?