Of course not, that isn't even remotely controversial.
>And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.
Page 1 of what text? Surely you're not suggesting people take the Book of Mormon's own text as evidence, that would be ludicrous. Page 1 of the wikipedia article wouldn't be credible either, so I don't know what text you're referring to. Although Wikipedia does point to a lot of pages questioning the Book of Mormon's authenticity as having an ancient origin, I haven't found any which actually validate it. Of course I'm not going to look very hard, since I already know that evidence doesn't exist and I strongly suspect you're trolling.
No, I'm asking that you point to actual manuscripts which were incorporated into the the Book of Mormon which originated from ~600 BC, tell us where they were excavated from and by whom, and in what museum or university those documents currently reside. Independently verified evidence as to its antiquity. And don't cite any sources actually connected to the Mormon church.
> And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.
The Book of Mormon is not evidence for itself; without other accounts from non Mormon sources, there's little reason to believe anything stated by the book of Mormon is anything but fiction. The same applies to all holy books; they cannot be evidence of their own truth.
Backing up that it was published in 1830? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#/media/File:The....
And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.