I may have seen them all, but they usually boil down to "see, the ancient israelites wore sandals, so the BoM is true!" type arguments. Is there one actual bit of evidence that the "modern" Bible is wrong, compared with DSS, but the DSS agrees with the Bom? This would be huge for apologists, but so far it's lame comparisons AFAIK.

The closest comparisons that I've seen supposedly relate to some of the Gnostic elements in Mormonism, but those were introduced gradually and well after the Book of Mormon.

They do not support the Bom in any way- except that Jerusalem was a real place.

My husband earned his Ph.D. under some of the best Qumran/DSS scholars in the world. The DSS does not provide evidence of BOM, nor does Mormonism have scholars up to the task of scholarly texual criticism. We all have seen plenty of evidence that it's a plagiarism of the flawed Textus Receptus KJV and a product of the folk wisdom of Smith's day.

I sometimes tell my husband about some of the "scholarly" FARMS arguments and all he does is laugh and shake his head at their most basic suppositions. He certainly won't engage in debate with them any more than he would with his undergrads or with our kids. Real scholars are out publishing articles in peer reviewed journals and/or are getting books published, not hanging out on apologetics websites. (Which is why he's the scholar and I'm not, haha!)

From the Tanners:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech12a.htm

Mormon scholars accept the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although they have not come to grips with the serious problems that these manuscripts create for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible…..

….Mormon scholars, however, are faced with a dilemma, for although these manuscripts support the text of the Bible, they could turn out to be one of the strongest evidences against Joseph Smith's "inspired revision" of the Bible and his "translation" of the text of Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon. For years Mormon scholars have labored to prove that the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is actually a translation of an ancient copy of Isaiah and is therefore superior to the translation found in the Bible. They have attempted to show parallels between the text of Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon and that found in some ancient manuscripts. We have shown, however, that these parallels are of little value because the manuscripts were known and studied in Joseph Smith's time (See Mormon Scriptures and the Bible, pp. 9-10).

If Mormon scholars could find similarities between the text of the Book of Mormon and documents that were not known in Joseph Smith's day, this type of evidence would be impressive. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, should provide a great deal of evidence for the Book of Mormon if it is really an ancient record. The Isaiah scroll found at Qumran Cave 1 should have caused a great deal of joy among Mormon scholars, for here is a manuscript of Isaiah which is hundreds of years older than any manuscript previously known. Surely, if the Book of Mormon were true, this manuscript would be filled with evidence to support the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon and thus prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Instead of proving the Book of Mormon, however, it has turned out to be a great disappointment to Mormon scholars.

Mormon apologist Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, of Brigham Young University, had to admit that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not help the case for the Book of Mormon:

After reading the Scrolls very carefully, I come to the conclusion that there is not a line in them that suggests that their writers knew the Gospel as understood by Latter-day Saints. In fact, there are a few passages that seem to prove the contrary....

All I want to know is, will an angel take the Dead Sea Scrolls back when the scholars are done with them?

When I was in Israel, I visited the "Shrine of the Book" where they're located. One, almost intact was the scroll of Isaiah 53,written Thousands of years ago. It was in Hebrew and everyone who can read hebrew can read it for themselfs. No strange reformed egyptian scribbles or angels having appeared with it and hidden them again as JS has claimed with his so-called book. He heavily drew from Isaiah, but in a KJV language. All that thisproves is plagerism.
Reminds me of Mohamed. He claimed the Angel Gabriel brought him the Koran and took to back to heaven. Hmmm!

I've actually seen one of these where he basically tells a lay audience that the dss prove mormonism (that's the fireside in a nutshell).

Some lds scholars even called him on this.

Not to be rude, but isn't "Mormon Scholar" an oxymoron? I mean, take a look at Nibley and Talmage.

Many a times I've walked away from their "enlightenment" scratching my head wondering what in the hell they were babbling about.

Moron seems to fit better.

ST