The responses on this OP speak volumes to the double standard held for evidence by the Anti-Mormons.
In my opinion this double standard is nothing more than a result of the cognitive dissonance the evidence creates in the Anti-Mormon, especially those Ex-Mo’s who have left the church. And here’s why..
First the BoM, BoA and the Bible have much in common with respects to what they objectively represent and what objective evidence supports the subjective beliefs about them by either party in thei debate.
As with Bom , BoA, and the Bible there exists, no autographs of the text.. Truly, the Bible has older mss, but the age of a mss is not an objective proof of the truth of the story it tells.. It only affirms that the story is as old as the oldest manuscript containing it.. From an objective point of view, that means the Genesis story is no older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, NT story is no older than 2nd century CE at best. and the BoM is narrative is no older than 1830.. Yet we have our subjective proclivities that we believe these stories to be authentic and originating on dates far earlier than mss dates.
To support our subjectivities we turn to evidences such as those put forth in the OP.. And as the OP pointed out there is a distinct double standard among our critics when it comes to accepting such as evidence. Why?
A simple answer would be because such evidence for the BoM is far more significant than similar evidences for the Bible narrative and this causes the cognitive dissonance.
The Book of Mormon like the Bible has not only manuscript evidence as pointed out above but both tell a story of miracles, which are largely not supported by objective evidence and it’s left to the faith of the believer. Yet the BoM differs from the Bible in one very significant way.. Its miracle story extends beyond the TEXT itself and on to the method of transmission, whereas the Bible does not. For we receive the Biblical text in a rather mundane human course of events.. Manuscripts were written and copied and handed down ultimately translated into a book we call the Bible and therefore finding an artifact that substantiates a historical point in the Biblical Narrative does little more that affirm that the author of the earliest manuscript was aware of the ancient events.. It still does very little to affirm the text is anything more than ancient fiction.. For ancient fiction writers would be able to include historical references.. Just note Homer or the Koran, or any of the other extra-Biblical texts that were excluded from the Bible.
The Book of Mormon on the other hand comes to us in alleged miraculous fashion, Angels delivering and Joseph translating, and so part of its miracle story is not limited to the story in the text itself , but beyond. So when an artifact such as the NHM stones are discovered that support the BoM narrative. This becomes a testament not only to the validity that the text is in fact an ancient text and not that imagination of someone in the 1830’s And if it’s truly a more ancient text, then this is not only evidence to support the narrative, but its evidence to support the miracle of its transmission, i.e .The miracle of an angel delivering a record. This is why the ANTI-MORMONS must dismiss the evidence out of hand and call it “Sour Grapes” to sooth their dissonance.
To even accept the possibility that any of these evidences support the authenticity of the Bom or Boa text is to admit they may be wrong in their criticisms against the faith.. For those who left the faith, this may cause even greater dissonance as they may have even more to answer for in the eternal scheme of things..