Well, let's not be glib. This is something that I am struggling with as well. There is plenty of evidence for many, if not most, of the Biblical cities, civilizations, and historical events. What is debatable is the miraculous aspects of the texts--Jonah, Noah's Ark, the Resurrection, etc. When one puts their faith in the Biblical accounts, they know that there is at least something solid (the historical aspect) to stand upon. However, as I read the Book of Mormon and I learn more about the Lehites I cannot help but wonder why I never learned about them in history class. LDS scholars continue to debate where in the Americas the BoM narrative takes place, how large an area it was, etc., without any conclusive archeological evidence. So, unlike the Bible, the BoM doesn't have a proven historical foundation. Now, I'm not saying that that makes the BoM false, or a hoax, or whatever. However, I am being intellectually honest. If I am going to commit myself to the LDS faith, then I must find and be certain of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I'm just saying that, for me, it'll be hard to put my faith in a book that lacks any evidence beyond spiritual confirmation. Does this conflict with Paul's view that the pagans can discover the truth of God solely through logic and the majesty of His creation? Can't faith come through reason? Or are the two mutually exclusive?