No, data supports that it was written around the same time as the Gospels (Matthew through John).
Jesus was created, because he was created by God, as we all were as spirits. God is Jesus' father. In my opinion, if one hadn't created each other, they both would have been since the beginning, therefore we would have two gods. I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense to me. Jesus was a spirit, created by God, and born of the virgin Mary. Tell me where in the Bible it says that Jesus was not created.
Here's a brief timeline of the beginning of the church:
Dec 24, 1805 - Joseph Smith is born
Early Spring, 1820 - The First Vision
September 21-22, 1823 - J.S. told of the Gold Plates
September 22, 1827 - J.S. obtains the plates and begins translation
June, 1829 - Translation completed
April 6, 1830 - Organization of the church in Fayette Township, New York
April 26, 1838 - Name of the church specified
June 27, 1844 - Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage Jail in Carthage Illinois.
There's a bunch of other stuff in there I skipped, but this is all that's really revelant to this topic.
So the technical "beginning" you're referring to came on April 6, 1830, which was 175 years ago a little over a month ago. How do you mean it's "too late to claim to be the church of Jesus Christ?" I do understand how one can argue that since it is so young, but when is it too late to glorify Christ? Also, take a look at the new churches that spring up all the time claiming to be the truth.
Yes, I will talk about the apostacy. As for evidence, you can look in school textbooks (I would suggest college texts based premodern civilization). Through them, one can see that there was a falling away of major religion, and areas that had no religion at all. Between the time of the death of Christ, up until the Roman empire, there is little to no evidence of the exsistance of religion. When religion started to be revived, it was done with writings that had been done on religion in years prior, and many of the truths that were once believed (truths we see evidence of through archeology and other manuscrips that were kept) were lost or deemed as unimportant. In the area of the "dark ages" there is practically no record of even so much as mortal life as we know it. You can read in the Bible of the "grafting of the olive branch", the "tree of life", and the grafting of the branches to the tree to restore it. Look at it like this: The tree = the church. The branches = all of us. We (the branches) need to be "brought back" to the church (the tree) and will be made a part of it. The tree was kept alive because of the roots (the people who kept religion going in secret in the early days), yet as the Bible also says, the roots had become corrupted over time by those who teach their own doctrine instead of the doctrine of the Lord.
And, yes, this is (or, can be) a thread for Mormon discussion. I'd rather have only one thread where stuff like this can be talked about instead of having a hundred accusation threads pop up in here. So keep the brain-busters coming. So far, everything that we've talked about on this board, I have been able to correct, and set straight our beliefs to those who claim to understand them, yet have no idea whatsoever of how confused they are on the subject.
H-D