Book of Mormon People, Ruins, and Artifacts 

Thank you for sharing! I've heard that "Hawaii" means "Land of Hawa" and that there are Polynesians who can trace their ancestry back to Hagoth.

@@MichaelP_IsMe Hawai'i is short for the name Hawai'iloa which has several meanings. In Hawaiian Ha means breath of life or living breath. Wai means water or waters, 'i meaning life force and Loa meaning permanent, lengthy, eternal. This is who they referred to as their leader who was the master navigator. Different places in Polynesia are named after Hawaii in honor of Hagoth. Savai'i in Samoa, 'Avaiki in the Cook Islands, Hawaiki in New Zealand, Havai'i in Tahitian and Vaihi in Tongan. When asked who or where Hawai'iloa the name came, they would say that it was the master ship builder (Hagoth) who brought them there and that he was Hawai'iloa the breath of life on the waters who took them to their permanent home. They symbolically treated him as a representation of Jesus who is the the true breath of life that guides us across the treacherous waters of life to our eternal dwelling place. I have my genealogy traced back to Hagoth through Maui and a bunch of other names I thought were just legends and myths like the Greek pantheon. Turns out they were all real people who were diefied for their acts and superior knowledge among those in that time. We also have certain words in Polynesia that have Egyptian and ancient Hebrew origin. It's so cool. So proud of my heritage!

@@teti_99 That's so awesome! Thank you for sharing. I've also heard that, while Polynesian ancestry has come from various places including North and South America, that there was a group who came from the Great Lakes area. Have you ever heard anything like that?

@@MichaelP_IsMe I haven't heard about the Great Lakes area but I have heard the American continent because of the Nephites. I know we also have ancestors from Southeast Asia as well as Egypt through Melonesia. There were three major migrations that took place which created Polynesians as we know them today. The arrival of the Melonesians from the west was first, then the Southeast Asians (Lapita) people. And then lastly was Hawaiiloa and his followers.

@@teti_99 Thank you for teaching me some good history!

if you think this is interesting, turn to page 1 of the bible and read just the first 19 verses. Don't go any further. Give it a couple re reads. There are no sunday school lessons on these first verses.

Literally all lies

The story about the devout mormon Thomas Ferguson, who persuaded the LDS presidency to set up an archeolgoical wing to seek out archeological evidence of the book of mormon, is quite interesting: He was granted $250,000 from the church to use to conduct the research. After ten years of solid archeological digs and research you will never guess what he found…that’s right NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING to support the fake book. The poor man wasted 10 years of his life looking for a lie eventually losing his testimony when he had to fact the bleak truth of the SWINDLE that is joseph smith jr and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day LIES!!! Read from below from where at first the LDS ‘Church' resisted financing the research. The article also recounts the devastation felt by Ferguson when on top of realizing there was no science to support the book of mormon it had been discovered that Joseph Smiths translation of the Egyptian papyri into his book of Abraham was also embarrassingly wrong and an out and out fraud. The last paragraph is referring to Hugh Nibley who mormons revere as a great scholar and defender of the faith. Ferguson's persistence and persuasiveness paid off,... Ferguson appealed to his good friend J. Willard Marriott for assistance. The following day Ferguson had an appointment with President McKay which Marriott had arranged.... President David O. McKay listened to Tom Ferguson's proposal and asked the specific amount he was requesting. Ferguson replied, 'Only about the amount that it would take to build a chapel.' "President McKay gave him a penetrating glance. 'We build $50,000 chapels and $250,000 chapels. Which did you have in mind? Tom Ferguson promptly replied, 'A $250,000 chapel.' That was the amount granted, sufficient to underwrite five years' work in a generous way (1955-1959).... It was during this period that Ferguson spent approximately half of his working time away from law, devoting this time to administering the affairs of the NWAF, giving speeches, studying and writing about the archaeology and history of ancient America and their relationship to the Book of Mormon." It was agreed that the New World Archaeology Foundation would not "discuss direct connections with the Book of Mormon, but rather to allow the work to stand exclusively on its scholarly merits." (Ibid., p. 276) The church provided financial support for this organization for many years. It was eventually "attached to and administered through BYU." In a paper entitled, "Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 1915-83," Fred W. Nelson wrote the following: "Thomas Ferguson has either directly or indirectly influenced thousands of people's thinking on archaeology.... He has had a great influence on professional archaeology through the Department of Archaeology at Brigham Young University, the Gates Collection, and the New World Archaeological Foundation.... Ferguson's legacy in the founding of the Archaeology Department at Brigham Young University, the obtaining of the Gates Collection, and as founder of the New World Archaeology Foundation stands as a shining example to us all." (As cited in The Messiah in Ancient America, pp. 282-83) From all that we can learn, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a dedicated believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the time he founded the New World Archaeology Foundation. He really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In a letter dated April 23, 1952, Mr. Ferguson said the "the archaeological data now available is entirely inadequate" for testing the Book of Mormon. He predicted, however, that the "next ten years of excavations in Mexico and Guatemala should enable us to make the archaeological tests." For a number of years he was very excited about the progress of the work and seemed certain that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated soon. In his book, One Fold And One Shepherd, p. 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating" EVIDENCE NOT FOUND Although many important archaeological discoveries were made that were not related to his search, the evidence he had desired to find to support the Book of Mormon did not turn up. In response to a letter Hal Hougey wrote in 1972 which reminded him that he had predicted in 1961 that Book of Mormon cities would be found within 10 years, Mr. Ferguson sadly wrote: "Ten years have passed... I sincerely anticipated that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years--and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation." (Letter dated June 5, 1972) At first it had all seemed so simple; since the Book of Mormon told when the Nephites were in Mesoamerica, all one had to do was find archaeological sites that dated to the period and the Book of Mormon would be established by the evidence. The fact that archaeological research failed to provide the confirmation which Mr. Ferguson expected to find must have weighed very heavily on his mind. The most serious blow to Ferguson's faith, however, came just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This collection, which had been lost for many years, contained the very papyrus from which Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four standard works of the Mormon Church. After Mr. Ferguson obtained photographs of the papyrus fragments, he consulted Professors Lutz and Lesko of the University of California. Both these Egyptologists agreed that the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham was in reality the Book of Breathings, an Egyptian funerary text made for a man by the name of Hor (Horus). Ferguson learned that this papyrus had nothing at all to do with the patriarch Abraham or his religion. It was in its entirety a pagan text filled with the names of Egyptian gods and goddesses. Thomas Stuart Ferguson was shaken to the core by this discovery. When the church's noted apologist, Dr. Hugh Nibley, began defending the Book of Abraham, he wrote a letter to another member of the church in which he stated: "Nibley's articles on the Book of Abraham aren't worth a tinker-first, because he is not impartial, being the commissioned and paid defender of the faith. Second, because he could not, he dared not, he did not, face the true issue: 'Could Joseph Smith translate Egyptian?'... By study of the GRAMMAR [Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar], the recovered papyrus, and the illustrations, it is perfectly obvious that we now have the oringinal [sic] manuscript material used by Jos. Smith in working up the Book of Abraham. Prof Klaus Baer of Univ. of Chicago, Prof Lutz of U.C. (Berkeley), Prof. Lesko (U.C. Berkeley) and Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson, all agree that the original manuscript Egyptian text translates into the Breathing Permit of Hor (Egyptian God).... The work of the two UC professors was done at my request and is unpublished. All 4 agree with each other, and without having conferred or collaborated. (My UC men did not, and still do not, know that there is any relationship of the manuscript material to the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham- or whatever....

@@michaelhord just did, still Mormon

@@nerdnul who?

Thank you! And as mentioned in The Book of Mormon, there were Nephites who surrendered to the Lamanites at the end and joined them. And I read of how some tribes say that descendants of the Hopewell Mound-builders (Alligewi, Mun-dua, etc.) survived by joining their tribes. I also believe that there are descendants of Lehi throughout all of the Americas and Pacific Islands due to words of later prophets and due to ancient moving, exploring, trading (including slave trading), and intermarrying. They're probably throughout a lot of the world now that 1600 years have passed since The Book of Mormon ended. But the heaviest traces (up to 40-50%) of Haplogroup X2a DNA (which originated in the Middle-east) is found among Native Americans from the eastern half of the United States/Canada. The further away you go from that area to Indigenous people throughout the rest of North, Central, and South America, the DNA traces more and more back to east Asia. But yes, the 6 tribes mentioned in Church History (and this video) and the more general "western tribes of Indians"/"Indians that now inhabit this country" that Joseph spoke of during the days when the USA was forcing Native tribes from the east onto reservations west of the Missouri/USA border are good starting points for us to work backwards from.

@@MichaelP_IsMe there has never been no ancient artifacts no ancient manuscripts of the Book of Mormon it's a lie , ( Alma 7:10 is a lie Jesus wasn't born in Jerusalem he was born in Bethlehem, So Michael your church is false and all of the prophets and Apostles

No I haven't. I just enjoy doing these short, casual videos on RU-vid. If you wanna go much deeper though, there's a list near the end of the video where I share names and links of a lot of people I've learned from. I first started learning from Wayne May, so I think he's a good one to start with. He's got books, DVDs, as well as talks you can find on RU-vid. He always shares plenty of non-LDS sources to research on your own, so you don't just have to take anybody's word for it.

I agree with you. The "Two Cumorah's Model" has zero evidence to support its belief that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America. It is pure conjecture on the part of those who espouse it. The "Heartland" model has so much that corresponds to the Hopewell Mound Builders archeological evidence. And now the new DNA evidence that demonstrates that many skeletons in the Hopewell areas are included in the Middle Eastern haplogroup. Fascinating stuff.

@@tienmou68 You said, "I agree with you. The "Two Cumorah's Model" has zero evidence to support its belief that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America. It is pure conjecture on the part of those who espouse it. The "Heartland" model has so much that corresponds to the Hopewell Mound Builders archeological evidence. And now the new DNA evidence that demonstrates that many skeletons in the Hopewell areas are included in the Middle Eastern haplogroup. Fascinating stuff." Many church leaders have claimed that the Book of Mormon took place, at least in part, in Central and South America. Were they all wrong? If the were wrong about that, what else did they claim was true that they were wrong about? Here are some examples: Footnotes in the BoM from 1879-1920 associate specific references in the BoM with modern day locations. For example, “The Atlantic Ocean”, “Caribbean Sea”, “Atlantic, south of Cape Horn”, Arctic, north of North America”, “Pacific”, “Atlantic”, “The United States”, “America”, “...in America”, “North America” ,“South America”, “North and South America”, “South America, called Lehi”, “North America, called Mulek”, “Mulek into North America”, “Lehi into South America”, “Into Bountiful and Zarahemla, South America being called Lehi, and North America, Mulek”, “towards North America”, “The hill Cumorah is in Manchester, Ontario Co., N. York”, “The ancient mounds of North America”, “in the elevated regions of the Rocky mountains”, “...the land Bountiful, south of the Isthmus,...”, “The Lord brought them [Jaredites] upon the western coast of North America”, “on the Western coast, and probably South of the Gulf of California, and North of the land of Desolation, which was North of the Isthmus”, “The inland seas of Asia”, “the destruction of the Jaredites in North America”, and “heat of the torrid zone”. When the church was uncertain about a location, it used qualifying words such as “believed”, “supposed”, “probably”, and even “unknown”. For example, “probably on the shore of the New England States”, “supposed to be Lake Ontario”, “believed to be on the coast of Chili, S. America”, “The land Nephi is supposed to have been in or near Ecuador, South America”, “The land of Zarahemla is supposed to have been north of the head waters of the river Magdalena, its northern boundary being a few days’ journey south of the isthmus”, and “Place unknown”. These references were removed in the 1920 version]; ([Book of Mormon, 1879 books.google.com/books?id=T1lNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false & Book of Mormon, 1907 books.google.com/books?id=zVxLJvTEctcC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol3/page/n539/mode/2up?q=Central+America [Central America]; archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol3/page/n553/mode/2up?q=whole+continent [Jaredites covered the “whole continent”]; archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol3/page/n553/mode/2up?q=Isthmus+of+Darien [Lehites landed “a little south of the Isthmus of Darien”]; archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasonsVol3/page/n563/mode/2up?q=Zarahemla [Zarahemla in Guatemala/Central America]; vol. 14, p. 325-331 [identifies many locations]; www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/magazine/ensignlp.nfo:o:33f4.jpg, archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct531geor/page/26/mode/2up?q=Chile [Chile]; archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct581geor/page/14/mode/2up?q=Chile [Chile]; archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct462geor/page/96/mode/2up?q=Chile [Chile]; archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct455geor/page/252/mode/2up?q=Chile [Chile]; archive.org/details/millennialstar8814eng/page/210/mode/2up?q=Chile [Chile]; archive.org/details/millennialstar7827eng/page/418/mode/2up?q=Chile [Chile]; archive.org/details/millennialstar7649eng/page/782/mode/2up?q=Chile [Chile]; archive.org/details/millennialstar11410eng/page/244/mode/2up?q=Chile [multiple locations] archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/44/mode/2up?q=chili [Chili]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/302/mode/2up?q=chili [Chili]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/328/mode/2up?q=chili [Chili]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/324/mode/2up?q=Central+America [Central America]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/56/mode/2up?q=Ecuador [Ecuador]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/86/mode/2up?q=Panama [Panama]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/300/mode/2up?q=North+America+South+America [North America & South America]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/324/mode/2up?q=Central+America [Central America]; archive.org/details/storyofbookofmor04reyn/page/316/mode/2up?q=Manti [“Manti” located “in the western half of the South American continent”]; etc, etc, etc. Also, can you please provide a link to DNA studies from reputable sources that the Hopewell Indians have Middle Eastern DNA? I have only heard that claim from pro-LDS sources and not seen evidence of that claim from any unbiased sources. Thanks!

@@tienmou68 Keep it simple. First if it was in S. America why didn't the people continue to build similar structures in N. America? Second when has any country in the world been FREE or have had freedoms like USA? No one has and too much time has passed for a free country to exist and the only one that has is America. Too many members are blind and ignorant to the truth, they don't think for themselves they have to be told everything.

They just don’t want to think too much about it. I was that way too until I looked at some of the evidence. I think they truly were of North America.

I don't think that it is that people don't think for themselves, it is just the narrative has been biased by many. ​@@JeffTomlinson-Consultant

Brother Michael plegase🙏🏼🙏🏼 how can we put this video In Spanish please give me ideas🙏🏼 would love to hear from you Thaaaank youuu

Thank you Michael excellent work

Wayne may has taught you well

@@tannerplatts6592 He's the first person I ever heard talk about this kind of stuff!

Sorry to say but these videos prove nothing. You've been deceived big time.

Have you had your DNA analyzed? Keep in mind that the analysts base your origin on assumptions. Many assume the native American ancestors came across the Bering Straits, and will identify the markers as being of north Asian origin. There was also an ancient Pacific migration ring by boat spreading Polynesian DNA, a north Atlantic ring of migration by boat spreading European DNA (which can be traced back to the middle east), and possibly an south Atlantic migration ring spreading African DNA. If your ancestors were from the Eastern North American Tribes, statistically you could be a descendant of Lehi or the Mulekites. If your ancestors are from the southern American tribes, Mexico, Central and South America, you statistically have a greater chance of being a descendant of the Jaredites. The Jaredited that perished in the final battle between the armies of Coriantumr and Shiz were those living in the Great Lakes region. By the time this conflict ensued, their seed covered two continents.

@@jclements007 Interesting, so you're saying that the Mayans were Jaredites? I've always believed they were part of the Book of Mormon people because of so many things in their culture, religious traditions, history, etc. but not the Nephites, or even necessarily Lamanites.

@BlueBoi Yes I'm very aware of all of that. I'm speaking of _remnants_ that remained in the culture. Pieces of religious practices, traditions, mythos, history, etc. It can be seen in many cultures throughout the Americas.

@BlueBoi No problem 😉

Thanks brotha!

Those were hoaxes that have been long shown to be large land mammals that died out over 10000 years ago.

Some LDS members claim that the Hopewell Culture are the Nephites of the BoM. However, the historical and scientific evidence available today does not support this conclusion. “Archaeological evidence for melting, smelting, and casting of metals in prehistoric eastern North American has not been found to date…’Thus there is no evidence whatsoever for smelted metal in the Hopewell material’...From 1951 researchers have quietly and slowly performed the microscopic analyses that are necessary to demonstrate the presence/absence of such processes as melting, smelting, and casting...To date their results are remarkably and notably consistent. No one has found any evidence that points to the use of melting, smelting, and casting in prehistoric eastern North American copper working. Nor has anyone excavated prehistoric features identified as kilns or furnaces, nor have any prehistoric slags been reported.” (Martin, S.R. (1999). Wonderful Power: The Story of Ancient Copper Working in the Lake Superior Basin. Great Lakes Books Series. Wayne State University Press. p. 135-137 at books.google.com/books?id=S3kc_flwYW0C&pg=PA135&dq=Archaeological+evidence+for+melting,+smelting,+and+casting+of+metals+in+prehistoric+eastern+North+American+has+not+been+found+to+date&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjChI3nqq7wAhW7GTQIHRXoCTMQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=Archaeological%20evidence%20for%20melting%2C%20smelting%2C%20and%20casting%20of%20metals%20in%20prehistoric%20eastern%20North%20American%20has%20not%20been%20found%20to%20date&f=false) “To the Hopewell Culture, ancient Native Americans who sought out the exotic from near and far, metal was a rare and precious resource. Copper, found in its pure form or laboriously extracted from rock, was common, but they didn’t have the technology to smelt iron.” (Ancient Native American beads traced to otherworldly souce: an iron meteorite, “Anthropology, Earth Science, History & Culture, Science & Nature, Space”, 23 May 2017 at insider.si.edu/2017/05/ancient-native-american-beads-traced-otherworldy-source-meteorite/#:~:text=To%20the%20Hopewell%20Culture%2C%20ancient,the%20technology%20to%20smelt%20iron) Also see: Challenging Issues, Keeping the Faith: Dilemmas with Great Lakes model more than just geographical, Deseret News, January 24, 2011 at www.deseret.com/2011/1/24/20368600/challenging-issues-keeping-the-faith-dilemmas-with-great-lakes-model-more-than-just-geographical & The Hopewell culture (in the Great Lakes area) and The Book of Mormon: Do they match?, Fairmormon.org, February 12, 2011 at www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2011/02/12/the-hopewell-culture-in-the-great-lakes-area-and-the-book-of-mormon

@BlueBoi You asked, “if the mound builders had no smelting why have so many ancient furnaces been found in the heartland?” The assumption in your question is that the “ancient furnaces” found in the heartland were used for “smelting”. Scientific consensus is that they were not used for smelting. Here a quick overview of Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America Here a quick overview of smelting and its history: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting Here are the melting temperatures for different metals: www.metalsupermarkets.com/melting-points-of-metals/ According to the BoM, the Nephites were a steel smelting people: 2 Nephi 5: 14-15 “14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people. 15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.” Jarom 1:8 “And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war-yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.” Steel smelting is just one of many anachronisms in the BoM and there is no evidence of steel smelting in America during the BoM timeframe. The following sums up some of the anachronistic problems with the BoM pretty well: “When Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon, he just assumed that the ancient Amerindians had the same kind of agriculture as that which he knew in upstate New York. Consequently, he had his ancient characters growing wheat, barley, corn, and flax, and planting vineyards for wine, and being able to understand the symbolism of the olive and trees. Now, of course, Smith was right about the corn - that is, maize. But is there anyone of Smith's day who had not heard of ‘Indian corn,’ or did not know that corn had come from the Indians? What Smith did not know, however, was that corn was but one of three staple crops raised by the Indians of Central America - the region in which the discovery of ruined civilizations had triggered enormous amounts of speculation in the time of Smith's youth. The other two major crops were squash and beans. These were supplemented by such things as avocados, amaranth, etc. You can search all you want in the Book of Mormon, but you won't find any mention, apart from corn, of the crops actually raised in ancient America. Incidentally, we have numerous cases where these crops have been preserved in archaeological sites and are easily identifiable. What does archaeology tell us of the presence or absence of the crops Smith claimed were the staples of ancient America? No remains of wheat or domesticated barley have ever been found. In fact, the one possible pre-Columbian specimen of barley discovered at a site in Arizona [not a Book of Mormon location anyway per apologists] is of a species different from the species of domesticated barley allegedly brought from the Near East. And what of flax? No dice, again. Fortunately for lovers of truth, the Mormon apologists cannot simply say we haven't been looking in the right place, or that the remains of these plants have all perished with the passage of time. The reason for our good fortune is the fact that these domestic plants are all flowering plants. As such, they produce pollen - in great abundance. If the Mormonic civilizations had been growing these crops for even a few decades - let alone the thousands of years allegedly chronicled by the Book of Mormon - every soil coring taken in Central America should show traces of wheat, barley, and flax pollen. Pollen is one of the most indestructible natural objects known. An example of the type of research that shows Book of Mormon agriculture to be nineteenth century fantasy is David J. Rue's 1987 paper in Nature titled ‘Early Agriculture and Early Postclassic Maya Occupation in Western Honduras.’ By studying soil corings from Lake Yojoa and Petapida Swamp, both in western Honduras, Rue was able to reconstruct the agricultural history of the area from a time 4770 years before the present up to modem times. He could tell from pollen when the region was forested, when the forest was cut and burned for agriculture, what crops were grown and for how long. Although he found clear records of pollen from corn (maize) and amaranth - two Amerindian staples - he makes no mention of wheat, barley, or flax pollen. Perhaps the LDS Church would like to pay him to go through his cores again, looking more carefully for the mythical motes that should be in them if the Book of Mormon be true!” (How do you lose a steel mill? at nowscape.com/mormon/zindler1.htm) Here is a question for you to answer: What evidence does the scientific community rely on to support their consensus that no pre-Columbian culture in North America used smelting metallurgy technology?

@BlueBoi You said, “you are acting like we know everything about ancient civilizations. That is simply not true at all.” I agree that we don’t know everything about ancient civilizations. I try to base my positions on what we do know based on the evidence available. If more evidence becomes available and disproves a previous belief, I will gladly change my position so that it is in line with the best evidence available. In that way, I try to remain as unbiased as possible because I am willing to admit when I am wrong and change my position when the evidence does not support my position. Do you take that same approach to life? You said, “Archaeologists interpret evidence based of 2 things: what they think those ancient people would have had; (what they think is logical), and their biases.” Based on this comment, it doesn’t appear to me that you understand what archeologists actually do. Here’s a primer for you: www.saa.org/about-archaeology/what-do-archaeologists-do Archaeology is a science based on rigorous preservation and analysis of evidence and data. The rigour is there to prevent wild speculation and minimize biases. You said, “If someone goes to prove the BoM wrong, they can easily do it.” I agree. When considering all evidence for and against the BoM, the evidence demonstrates that it is not a historical document of ancient Isrealites/Native Americans. You said, “If someone goes to prove it right they can easily prove it too.” I disagree. When considering all evidence for and against the BoM, the evidence demonstrates that it is not a historical document of ancient Isrealites/Native Americans. In order to “prove it right”, one would need to rely on confirmation bias and ONLY consider evidence that they believe supports the historicity of the BoM and ignore all the evidence that disproves it.

@BlueBoi You said, “so demonstrating all the evidence for and against- somehow proves it wrong?” Presenting all evidence for and against the historicity of the BoM will provide the person evaluating the evidence the best opportunity to make the most reasonable conclusion about the historicity of the BoM based on all available evidence. You said, “So if i say Nahom is an evidence for, horses evidence against, that somehow is not biased to say it is false? how does that make any sense?” Only listing one evidence for and one evidence against does not provide a realistic comparison of available evidence. So, of course your example does not make sense about biased conclusions. Here is a better comparison of evidence. You’ve mentioned and believe the following is evidence that supports the historicity of the BoM: 1) BoM claims Ishmael was buried in Nahom and a burial altar with the inscription NHM was found in the old world. 2) BoM claims Lehites are Israelites and spoke Hebrew that Hebrew scripts have been found in Americas 3) BoM claims it was written in reformed Egyptian and that Egyptian artifacts have been found in America I believe the following is evidence that disproves the historicity of the BoM: 1) BoM claims horses were used as domesticated animals, yet there is no evidence of horses, let alone, domesticated horses, in the Americas during the BoM timeline. Horses mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 2) BoM claims cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, and goats were all used as domesticated animals, yet there is no evidence of cattle species in the Americas during the BoM timeline, let alone domestication of the other animals in the Americas during the BoM timeline. Livestock mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 3) BoM claims that elephants were used, yet there is no evidence of elephants in the Americas during the BoM timeline. Elephants mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 4) BoM claims the Jaredites brought swarms of honey bees to the Americans, yet the honeybee didn’t exist in the Americas during the BoM timeline and was brought to the Americas in the early 1600s. Honey bees mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 5) The BoM claims the Nephites used horses and chariots yet there is no evidence of chariots or any other wheeled vehicles used to transport people or goods in the Americas during the BoM timeline. Chariots mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 6) The BoM claims the Nephites used domesticated wheat and barley, yet there is no evidence of domesticated wheat and barley in the America’s during the BoM timeline. Domesticated wheat and barley mentioned in the BoM are anachronisms. 7) The BoM claims the Jaredites and Lehites were iron smelting people, yet there is no evidence of iron smelting in the America’s during BoM timeline. Iron smelting mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 8) The BoM claims the Jaredites and Lehites were steel making people, yet there is no evidence of steel making in the America’s during the BoM timeline. Steel making mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 9) The BoM claims the Jaredites had silk clothing, yet there is no evidence of silk in the America’s during the BoM timeline. Silk mentioned in the BoM is an anachronism. 10) There is no New World archaeological evidence that directly supports any of the specific cities mentioned in the BoM even though the BoM claims the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites numbered in the millions. 11) The BoM claims that after the flood, the Americas became a choice land above all other lands and that it was kept from the knowledge of other nations so that the BoM peoples could possess the land unto themselves, yet there is tremendous archaeological evidence in the Americas for other civilizations before, during, and after the BoM timeline and yet no archaeological evidence for any specific BoM cities. 12) The BoM claims the Lehites and Mulekites are of Israeli descent yet DNA proves that Native Americans do not have Israeli ancestry but have Asian ancestry. 13) The BoM claims the global flood mentioned in the Bible was a real event, yet there is no evidence of a global flood. 14) The BoM claims that Tower of Babel was a real event which led to the Jaredites traveling to the Americas, yet there is no evidence that the Tower of Babel was a real event. 15) The BoM story of how the Jaredites crossed the ocean and arrived in the Americas is a scientific impossibility. 16) The BoM claims it was written in “reformed Egyptian” based on Hebrew and Egyptian yet modern day linguists see no relationship between the “reformed Egyptian” characters available today, which were alleged to have been copied directly from the gold plates, and Hebrew and Egyptian characters. 17) Scientific consensus that ancient Hebrew scripts have not been found in the Americas and that Native American histories do not include a Hebrew influence. 18) Scientific consensus that ancient Egyptian artifacts have not been found in the Americas and that Native American histories do not include an Egyptian influence. 19) The fact that only people associated with the LDS church believe the altar with the Hebrew name NHM is directly related to Ishmael’s burial site and is therefore to be interpreted as “Nahom”. Hebrew doesn't have vowels, so, yes, the Hebrew name NHM (nun-chet-men) could be transliterated to Nahom. However, since we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used, any other vowel permutation is equally likely: Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham and so on (25 different combinations are possible in fact, 30 if the second vowel is left out completely). So to appeal to the inscription "NHM" as proving the location "Nahom" is really unfounded. I will stop there, at least, for now. [One thing I would like to point out is that a single anachronism in a document is usually enough to disprove the historicity of that document. Just one. And, as you can see above, the BoM has many anachronisms. And no, I did not list all of them. There are many more.] Based on the above list of evidence, which is a more reasonable conclusion about the historicity of the BoM? 1) That it really is a historical record of ancient Native Americans on the American continent, or 2) that it is not a real historical record of ancient Native Americans on the American continent? You said, “Also, what i said about archaeologists is true. For example all Hebrew script in the Americas is said to be fake only because they don't think Hebrews were in the Americas. (a bias) Egyptian artifacts were also found in the Americas, though none of this is in the history books.” I disagree that archaeologists are biased against the historicity of the BoM. The scientific method is designed to minimize, and/or eliminate, if possible, any potential biased conclusions through peer review, independent testing/verification, etc. What your comment is telling me is that you already believe the BoM is true; therefore, to justify your own belief, you must conclude that if scientists disagree with your conclusion then they must be the ones that are biased, not you. That conclusion, itself, is biased. In order to justify your belief that your own “evidence based” conclusion is the correct conclusion and the scientific community’s conclusion based on the same evidence is the incorrect conclusion, you would need to believe that there is a conspiracy being perpetrated by the entire scientific community across all scientific disciplines to maintain and perpetuate a bias against the historicity of the BoM, regardless of the evidence available today. Now, you tell me, which is a more reasonable conclusion, 1) that you are not biased toward a belief in the historicity of the BoM and are not interpreting evidence in a way that supports that belief or, 2) that there is a global conspiracy being perpetrated by the entire global scientific community across all scientific disciplines to maintain and perpetuate a bias against the historicity of the BoM, regardless of the evidence available. Just so you are aware, confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses. Confirmation bias happens when a person gives more weight to evidence that confirms their beliefs and undervalues evidence that could disprove it. People display this bias when they gather or recall information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs such as religion. For example: “I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else we get from the restored gospel is true. Therefore any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm.” (Kerry Muhlestein, LDS Apologist and associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, The Book of Abraham and Unnoticed Assumptions, Fairmormon.org) This is the very definition of confirmation bias and, from my experience, seems to be the common approach of most believing LDS members. They start off with the assumption that the BoM is true and interpret the evidence based on that conclusion. Feel free to add to the list of evidence that you believe supports the historicity of the BoM and I will gladly add more evidence that I and the scientific communities believe disproves that historicity of the BoM. Comparing ALL evidence side by side, for and against the historicity of the BoM, will provide the best opportunity to come to the correct conclusion based on all evidence and avoid confirmation bias. I am ready to compare evidence with you. Are you ready to compare evidence?

The answer is obvious...the battle is fiction

Zero evidence for this. Native Americans were here thousands of years before Smith said they were. Loving your life through one mans eyes

Tell me more.

I was sold over night three years ago when I came across the heartland model. I was a Mesoamerica believers, but did not made a fuzz of it nor checking it out. I had a BoM with pictures of Mesoamerica artifacts when I grew up. I watch my first video of Wayne May and that is all it took me to change.

Hi Patrick! You're right. How could I forget?! In Doctrine & Covenants 128:19-21, the Lord tells us that the land of Cumorah includes the counties of Seneca, Broome, and Susquehanna in New York/Pennsylvania. Thanks for the reminder. That makes 4 locations named by the Lord in these latter days.

@@MichaelP_IsMe Yo, I have zero clue if you'll see this, but by doing a direct reply I hope you do 😎. I'm a non Mormon, but a professed born again Christian. I've been doing a lot of research into biblical apocrypha and I ended up stumbling into this interesting world of Mormonism. Is there a more academic route I can take to get in contact with a member of the LDS to try and learn more?

@@ziggyolopwi7050 look up Hugh Winder Nibley he was an American scholar and an apologist of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who was a professor at Brigham Young University for nearly 50 years. He was a prolific author, and wrote apologetic works supporting the archaeological, linguistic, and historical claims of Joseph Smith. Wikipedia

@@ziggyolopwi7050 Hey Ziggy! I'm glad you're enjoying this stuff. I know of quite a few people of various Christian religions who are learning that God lead groups of people all over the world and that Jesus Christ visited people all over the world after His resurrection, including here in ancient America, which is what The Book of Mormon is all about. As far as contacting knowledgeable members of the LDS Church concerning the Adena and Hopewell mound-builders of North America, Wayne May of Ancient American magazine has decades of learning on this subject. He's a really cool guy, and he has 2 websites: www.ancientamerican.com/ and ldsarchaeology.com/ . If you can't reach him through there, let me know and I can help you get in contact with him.

The BoM is a fiction dictated by JS when he had his head in a hat with a seer stone as the Elders well know and which is in the LDS Gospel Topic Essay "The Book of Mormon Translation" which the Elders approved in 2013 ... which can be easily browsed by those who want to know the truth. The truth will make you free.

@@davidhogg8721 The Book of Mormon is absolutely _not_ fiction. I do agree that the truth will set you free, which is why it's great the O.P. clearly believes it to be true. If you want to know for sure of the truth, I invite you to read it with *an open heart* and pray *with sincerity* to the Lord to inquire of it's truth. Otherwise you are just spouting opinion and not asking the ultimate authority.

@@CarrieP1981 "The Book of Mormon is absolutely not fiction." ... how do you know? Have you read the **LDS** Gospel Topic Essay (GTE) "The Book of Mormon Translation" which was approved by the highest levels of LDS authority in 2013? In the section "The Mechanics of Translation" it admits JS dictated the BoM when he had his head in a hat with a seer stone. Do you believe in seer stones? In spite of that evidence of how the BoM came to be in the LDS GTE, the BoM INTRODUCTION still has JS translated from gold plates. Now you should know that translating from gold plates is not true based on what the Elders recently approved in the LDS GTE. I have asked and asked for Mormons to come back to me so that we can discuss this contradiction of gold plates vs seer stone but no one has ever come back. Can you please come back with your comments? If you do not, that means this contradiction is embarrassing? "why it's great the O.P. clearly believes it to be true." ... O.P. being? "Otherwise you are just spouting opinion and not asking the ultimate authority." ... I am not "spouting opinion" I am quoting LDS sources. Please explain this to me: 2 Nephi 31:21 is a perfect definition of the Trinity - but the LDS rejects the Trinity which is a foundational Christian truth first referenced in Genesis 1:26. Anyone who does not believe in the Trinity cannot claim to be a Christian, it is that important - yet President Nelson told a Brazilian journalist Mormons were Christians ... which is not true .... In D&C 20:28 there is another definition of the Trinity ... so why don't you believe in the Trinity? As you can see as a person of integrity, I am not "spouting opinion" but quoting accurately the LDS. In St. Matthew 16:18 Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church ... so that Church must still exist and be easy to find - I can help. Peace and blessings

Robert, just curious what is it that leads you to believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints is true?

@@stevenhenderson9005 I'm actually no longer active in the Church as of 2013. But if you were to take every Church and look at his principles and foundation, or structure of their Church? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints takes the cake. Hands down.

@@Littleboy1976 Well that is a very strong claim that you make. In your opinion what makes the LDS church more superior then other organizations?

@@stevenhenderson9005 the Basics. The Foundation of the Church. Ephesians 4. Mathew 7: 6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

@@Littleboy1976 Your very lucky to have just stuck with the basics and not spent so much time diving into the actual history of the church or the controversial issues. I wish I only knew the basics and I wish the church would have kept everything hidden instead of releasing it all in the Joseph Smith papers. I enjoyed knowing that the persecution of the early saints happened because of the religious beliefs. The counsel of 50 min documents that the church has kept locked up in the vault for the last 190 years just completely destroyed that for me. I wish they would have destroyed those documents. I didn't want to know that Joseph Smith was trying to form his own theocracy government and was making plans to over through the government. Their goal was to convert the laminates (native americans) and build up a large enough army to take over the country with him as King along with his counsel of 50 that would determine the laws. They even formed a new constitution and it was going to be known as the Kingdom of God (not America). In 2016 the church released these documents to the public and after reading them it changed my whole view of Joseph Smith and makes me realize why he was assassinated. I would have never believed it until I read the documents the church put out and this lead me to look at everything else and discovering lies after lies that Joseph told and Emma Smith was doing everything she could to cover up the lies and all the controversial issues Joseph was causing. I guess it is a good thing most members of the church don't dive into the church's website or their Joseph Smith papers project because it is a huge wake up call.

Yes! Guys like Wayne May, Rod Meldrum, and a lot of others go way in depth on this kind of stuff.

The natives of the most southern tip f South America were known for wearing loin clothes in a very cold climate.

The Bible is not a Book; the Bible is a library. It contains 66 different books written by 40 authors spread out over four empires (Israelite, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Roman) over a period of somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 years. It was written in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) on three different continents (Africa, Southwest Asia, and Europe). The evidence of the multi-sourced nature of the Bible is indisputable. No serious scholar, believer or critic, doubts these basic facts. By contrast the entire Book of Mormon (BoM), in fact, every single distinguishing aspect of the Mormon religion, is conclusively traceable in its origin to only ONE source, one man - Joseph Smith, writing in the 1820s in the Western New York frontier. Mormons will argue that the Book of Mormon is like the Bible - a collection of books, written by different authors. But that claim is unsupportable. There is no evidence that any of the BoM’s alleged authors or even their whole civilizations ever even existed. On this point, the contrast with the Bible is as clear as it is important. There is no dispute anywhere in proper scholarship (i.e. anything more substantive than rants by virtually anonymous, self-appointed, never-published, non-peer-reviewed internet “experts”) about the fact that the history of the human civilizations described in the Bible follow the basic trajectory of the historical trajectory of the Bible. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Roman empires really did exist right where and when the Bible describes them. Israel actually existed precisely where and when the Bible says it did. The existence of dozens upon dozens of individual characters on the Bible’s pages has been confirmed along with countless numbers of details about their lives. These facts are established as objective truth with or without the Bible. In other words, we have what historians call “multiple, independent attestation” backing up much of what the Bible says are actual people living in real locations and experiencing true events. If we did not have the Bible -if the Bible never even existed- we would still have multiple, independent accounts of many of its events, even up to and including the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the establishment of the Christian Church. Now, By Contrast: No one has ever positively identified where or exactly when anything recorded in the Book of Mormon supposedly happened. Mormons cannot even conclusively identify or even agree on which of the American continents (North or South) to look for any such evidence. There is precisely zero evidence that any person in the BoM’s New World narrative ever even existed. We have exactly no evidence of any of the BoM’s 100 named western hemisphere cities. There is no evidence of the BoM’s massive wars of extinction ever actually occurring. And while the Bible’s original languages are massively well attested and nowhere ever even disputed, the simple fact is, we have no evidence or any reason whatsoever to think that Joseph Smith’s “Reformed Egyptian” ever even existed. As with ALL things Mormon, there is but one, single sole source for the original claims for its existence: one man. Joseph Smith. The single-source nature of the Book of Mormon and for the entire Mormon religion is entirely consistent with the explanation that Joseph Smith, alone or with conspirators, faked the whole thing. If Smith lied about the Book of Mormon, we rightly expect that there would be no evidence for the simple existence of the BoMs various human civilizations. There is no such evidence. If Smith lied, we rightly expect that there would be no evidence that any of the named “Jaredites”, “Nephites”, “Mulekites”, or, in the goofy words of Smith himself, “all manner of ‘ites'” named in the BoM. There is no such evidence. If Smith lied we should find precisely zero evidence of any of the historically significant events described in the BoM, such as the extermination of the massive “Nephite” civilization. No one has ever found any such evidence. If Smith lied, we should never find any evidence of Joseph Smith’s “Reformed Egyptian” language. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest such a text type ever existed. If Smith lied, we should expect to see a pattern of similar lies throughout his life, beginning before his self-appointment as a supposed, “prophet”. There is plenty of evidence of this, from the testimony of his own mother to his wild imagination to the affidavits of his neighbors and the victims of his scams to his conviction for crimes generally lumped today under the legal heading of fraud. If Smith lied, we should be able to find similar kinds of speculations about the history of Native America that preceded Smith and from which he could have “borrowed” to create the BoM. We do. Spaulding, Adair, Ethan Smith and many others had been writing similar stories beginning over 100 years before Smith was even born. And the King James translation of the Bible actually appears, quoted verbatim, and anachronistically in many places throughout the BoM. In other words, the state of the evidence has always been and continues to be entirely consistent with the explanation that Joseph Smith was a lying fraud who faked his alleged, “revelations from God” or that he was delusional and actually believed his own psychotic episodes. The one explanation that none of the evidence supports is the notion that Smith was telling the truth. Facts Not Feelings: It matters not a wit whether you believe it or how you may feel about it. Truth is based on facts and the fact is, the BoM and therefore the Mormon religion of which it is, in the words of Joseph Smith, the “keystone” has only one positively identified source in all of known human history. And the only solid evidence we do have shows that Mr. Smith copied parts of the King James Bible and the fictional works and speculations of other men (Spaulding, Adair, et al) and mixed them together with the figments of his own fevered and legendary imagination to produce one of the greatest hoaxes in human history. With the failure of the one and only, single sole source for the Book of Mormon (and all of Mormonism, for that matter) the religion of Mormonism itself dies a merciless death - splattered asunder on the harsh rocks of observable reality, the very rocks upon which Mormonism hurls itself when it requests your investment in its credibility. Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6) Commit your works to the LORD, And your plans will be established. (16:3) When a man's ways are pleasing to the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. (16:7) The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD. (16:33)

@@nerdnul oh! someone really likes to copy and paste big chunks of anti mormon crap. Your comment doesn't deserve 1 second of attention, and you don't possess a bit of authority to call men in the name of the Lord. Enjoy your holidays.

@@EMonzon Oh! My authority comes from Jesus Christ alone, and I condemn LDS as a blasphemy against the God of Heaven and Earth. Do some research and you will be an x-mormon like 90% of your fellow Mormons.

@@nerdnul A blasphemy is to call the name of God and in the following sentence condem your brother's faith. Yours is a self-appointed authority, like all those who claim authority without being called and ordained like Aaron was. I did research all my life, but going to the source, not to what some offended apostate wrote in bitterness.

@@EMonzon Brothers? Your worship a false Jesus and fake prophet, how are you my brother. Your fake "priesthood" holds no weight with anyone but the devil. One day you will reflect as an x-mormon, how silly LDS really is. Enjoy your Thanksgiving!

Yeah, 2020 kept me pretty close to home. However during 2020, I have been exploring petroglyphs in St. George that teach about Jesus Christ. I plan on putting it into a video someday :)

Let me know when you come

@@MichaelP_IsMe my parents talked to an old timer in St George who claims some Native Americans in the area told him there are metal plates containing their history that are hidden near those petroglyphs south of the airport.

@@MichaelP_IsMe There were never no artifacts or Cities to prove the book of Mormon because it fairytale And Joseph Smith will pay for blasphemy

@@MichaelP_IsMe : where are these?? I was visiting there from PA for over a year, but I missed seeing them even though it was a goal of mine to find them. I was staying in Ivins. By the way, there is lore that a mound down the road from my home may be a native American mound. I stopped and talked to the owner of the property (of quite a number of acres) about it and she said that she had archeologists come to investigate. When they were supposedly done, they told her that there was nothing there but that she was not allowed to dig deeper than 12” anywhere on her property or she would be fined. This is in Washington Cty, Md on Rt 58 near the northern border of the state. There are also a hillside full of stone-covered native American graves that are obscure to the eye, I didn’t notice them for years even though I drove by them constantly. A local person pointed them out to my son. I wonder, exactly what is under our toes. On my property just over the border, I picked up a rock one day and it caught my breath. It just feels ancient and hand-worked, like a broken tool’s stone piece with grooved-out lines that feel like they are for ties. I live on the border of Adena and Hopewell zones, but I know this property would have been a prized one due to the hunting, fishing, wide water, hill-top overlook, and deep gullies by water. It makes me wonder what history is here. But I have learned not to let certain archeological people near it, whether government or university. It’s too bad they can’t be trusted. I lived around DC for years, but when looking to see anything about the rest of our history that is sabotaged by the Smithsonian, it just makes you not want to go at all. With all of the cover-ups, it’s like 4th grade bullies are running it. So in almost 40 years, I’ve gone to certain ones a couple times. In time, I believe be we will be given the truth, but likely not until the millennium when certain people have been put in straight jackets and muzzles.

Brigham Young sent "missionaries" to China to obtain poisons in which to kill Native Americans...

Because they ARE from Asia and not Jerusalem

I am Hebrew, but have Asian traces, too. Munsee was my mom's maiden name. I am a descendant of Munsee and Powhatan.

DNA is traced through matriarch.

Not only did the BoM characters not exist in North America, they also did not exist is Central and South America.

The BoM is a fiction dictated by JS when he had his head in a hat with a seer stone as the Elders well know and which is in the LDS Gospel Topic Essay "The Book of Mormon Translation" which the Elders approved in 2013 ... which can be easily browsed by those who want to know the truth. The truth will make you free.

What are the two fish? Pray tell!

@@PatrickMayo_ It has been a few years and I lost the phone that had their names. I cross referenced fish in the missippi and the great lakes with a river that I believe comes out of germany or russia. This is the geographical problem that Bible and Book of Mormon believers are going to have to deal with. At first I tried cross referencing south american rivers with middle eastern fish with no luck. Nothing matched. After discovering that the sea east and the sea west was the great lakes above new york I searched the european and asian rivers I found the two matches. I think one of them was a bass of some sort and I don't remember the other one.

There is some very fine research and information presented here, which is appreciated. But because we have conclusive evidence that Moroni's Cumorah (Mormon's) was in New York, that does not prove that the narrow neck of land and Zarahemla were north of Adam-ondi-Ahman, or any where that near Cumorah. You can study my manuscript on file at the BYU Maxwell Institute entitled, “Where Does the Two Cumorah Theory Stand?,” by L. La Mar Adams, which shows how the Prophet Joseph and Book of Mormon passages puts the narrow neck of land and Zarahemla far south of Missouri, and not in that Jaredite land (the 3 nations existed, overlapped, but not in the same land, for 400 years). To say that the Nephites did not exist at least as far south as Central America, in addition to their later living in the US area, is not only contradicting the Prophet Joseph, but a number of Book of Mormon passages.

@@l.lamaradams1842 I'd be happy to read your article. I googled and could not find it. Would you happen to have a link? I am fascinated by the Heartland evidence just as I was years ago by the notion that Central America could have been a location for the Book of Mormon. However, my testimony does not rest on these theories or evidences. I have already had someone argue that I was wrong for being in favor of the Heartland model and that is fine. This theory happens to make more sense to me personally. It does not reflect on my testimony of the restored gospel. I think you may have answered my question that I had originally posted. Thank you!

Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan.

The LDS church has officially identified the location of the Hill Cumorah on multiple occasions where, according to the BoM, millions of people died, in the final battle of the Jaradites and the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. According to the church, the Hill Cumorah is located in Manchester, New York, and is the same hill where Moroni deposited the gold plates and where Joseph obtained the gold plates. For example, President Thomas S. Monson speaking from the Hill Cumorah said, “What a privilege to be here at the Hill Cumorah and to reflect on the momentous events that unfolded on September 22, 1827, when a plowboy prophet took a horse and wagon and, in the dark of night, rode to this hill, where he received an ancient record from the angel Moroni.” (Special witness of Christ, Ensign, April 4, 2001, p. 19-20 Also see: Cumorah, Hill, Guide to the Scriptures www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/cumorah-hill?lang=eng & Hill Cumorah, Historic Sites, Church History history.churchofjesuschrist.org/subsection/historic-sites/new-york/manchester/hill-cumorah?lang=eng) Yet, there is zero archeological evidence that any battle occurred at that site, let alone one that included millions of people. If there is evidence that should be easy to find to support the historicity of the BoM, it should be around the Hill Cumorah.

@@adamholloway7963 Wow, you sure put a lot of energy into something that you _don't even believe in,_ your profile card for just _this channel_ shows you have written *30 comments.*

@@CarrieP1981 I believe in the truth and I invest energy into sharing the truth. I was taught many things growing up including, "Every member a missionary".

@@adamholloway7963 Did I misunderstand your comment? Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is true?

Yes it's on Fantasy Island

The Bible is not a Book; the Bible is a library. It contains 66 different books written by 40 authors spread out over four empires (Israelite, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Roman) over a period of somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 years. It was written in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) on three different continents (Africa, Southwest Asia, and Europe). The evidence of the multi-sourced nature of the Bible is indisputable. No serious scholar, believer or critic, doubts these basic facts. By contrast the entire Book of Mormon (BoM), in fact, every single distinguishing aspect of the Mormon religion, is conclusively traceable in its origin to only ONE source, one man - Joseph Smith, writing in the 1820s in the Western New York frontier. Mormons will argue that the Book of Mormon is like the Bible - a collection of books, written by different authors. But that claim is unsupportable. There is no evidence that any of the BoM’s alleged authors or even their whole civilizations ever even existed. On this point, the contrast with the Bible is as clear as it is important. There is no dispute anywhere in proper scholarship (i.e. anything more substantive than rants by virtually anonymous, self-appointed, never-published, non-peer-reviewed internet “experts”) about the fact that the history of the human civilizations described in the Bible follow the basic trajectory of the historical trajectory of the Bible. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Roman empires really did exist right where and when the Bible describes them. Israel actually existed precisely where and when the Bible says it did. The existence of dozens upon dozens of individual characters on the Bible’s pages has been confirmed along with countless numbers of details about their lives. These facts are established as objective truth with or without the Bible. In other words, we have what historians call “multiple, independent attestation” backing up much of what the Bible says are actual people living in real locations and experiencing true events. If we did not have the Bible -if the Bible never even existed- we would still have multiple, independent accounts of many of its events, even up to and including the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the establishment of the Christian Church. Now, By Contrast: No one has ever positively identified where or exactly when anything recorded in the Book of Mormon supposedly happened. Mormons cannot even conclusively identify or even agree on which of the American continents (North or South) to look for any such evidence. There is precisely zero evidence that any person in the BoM’s New World narrative ever even existed. We have exactly no evidence of any of the BoM’s 100 named western hemisphere cities. There is no evidence of the BoM’s massive wars of extinction ever actually occurring. And while the Bible’s original languages are massively well attested and nowhere ever even disputed, the simple fact is, we have no evidence or any reason whatsoever to think that Joseph Smith’s “Reformed Egyptian” ever even existed. As with ALL things Mormon, there is but one, single sole source for the original claims for its existence: one man. Joseph Smith. The single-source nature of the Book of Mormon and for the entire Mormon religion is entirely consistent with the explanation that Joseph Smith, alone or with conspirators, faked the whole thing. If Smith lied about the Book of Mormon, we rightly expect that there would be no evidence for the simple existence of the BoMs various human civilizations. There is no such evidence. If Smith lied, we rightly expect that there would be no evidence that any of the named “Jaredites”, “Nephites”, “Mulekites”, or, in the goofy words of Smith himself, “all manner of ‘ites'” named in the BoM. There is no such evidence. If Smith lied we should find precisely zero evidence of any of the historically significant events described in the BoM, such as the extermination of the massive “Nephite” civilization. No one has ever found any such evidence. If Smith lied, we should never find any evidence of Joseph Smith’s “Reformed Egyptian” language. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest such a text type ever existed. If Smith lied, we should expect to see a pattern of similar lies throughout his life, beginning before his self-appointment as a supposed, “prophet”. There is plenty of evidence of this, from the testimony of his own mother to his wild imagination to the affidavits of his neighbors and the victims of his scams to his conviction for crimes generally lumped today under the legal heading of fraud. If Smith lied, we should be able to find similar kinds of speculations about the history of Native America that preceded Smith and from which he could have “borrowed” to create the BoM. We do. Spaulding, Adair, Ethan Smith and many others had been writing similar stories beginning over 100 years before Smith was even born. And the King James translation of the Bible actually appears, quoted verbatim, and anachronistically in many places throughout the BoM. In other words, the state of the evidence has always been and continues to be entirely consistent with the explanation that Joseph Smith was a lying fraud who faked his alleged, “revelations from God” or that he was delusional and actually believed his own psychotic episodes. The one explanation that none of the evidence supports is the notion that Smith was telling the truth. Facts Not Feelings: It matters not a wit whether you believe it or how you may feel about it. Truth is based on facts and the fact is, the BoM and therefore the Mormon religion of which it is, in the words of Joseph Smith, the “keystone” has only one positively identified source in all of known human history. And the only solid evidence we do have shows that Mr. Smith copied parts of the King James Bible and the fictional works and speculations of other men (Spaulding, Adair, et al) and mixed them together with the figments of his own fevered and legendary imagination to produce one of the greatest hoaxes in human history. With the failure of the one and only, single sole source for the Book of Mormon (and all of Mormonism, for that matter) the religion of Mormonism itself dies a merciless death - splattered asunder on the harsh rocks of observable reality, the very rocks upon which Mormonism hurls itself when it requests your investment in its credibility. Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6) Commit your works to the LORD, And your plans will be established. (16:3) When a man's ways are pleasing to the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. (16:7) The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD. (16:33)

Haha! Nice :)

There is a hubris spirit told about in 2nd Nephi 27: 16 from the learned halls from the Smithsonian right down through the BYU professors.

No my dear....there is no evidence in the archeological world to support the book Mormonism. If you can show the Smithsonian anything to support your claims they would present your religions claims as legitimate. Research your founders family and you will know you are following a fake religion.

@@simplychecking why are you here?

@@tylerdurden4080 Well first off Tyler, did you delete my post? Answer that and then I’ll give you an answer why am on this site

All evidence is in North America, descendants of the mulekites have stated they entered through the St Lawrence river which agrees with what has been found.

Thank you Bryce! I'm glad you like it. However, the Nephites & Lamanites are part of the remnant of Jacob (not all, but part), because Jacob has descendants all over the world. Jacob's other name is Israel, and Joseph is one of Jacob(Israel)'s sons, and Manasseh is one of Joseph's sons, and Lehi is one of Manasseh's descendants, and the Nephites/Lamanites are descendants of Lehi's sons. Therefore, the Nephites/Lamanites are descendants (a remnant) of Jacob(Israel). And in 3 Nephi 21:22, when Jesus Christ is speaking in person to the Nephites/Lamanites, He specifically calls them "this the remnant of Jacob(, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance)", not all "the remnant of Jacob", because again, they are only part of "the remnant of Jacob" since Jacob(Israel) has many descendants through his 12 sons and 1 (or more) daughter(s). So Jesus specifically singles out the Nephites/Lamanites as "this the remnant of Jacob", and it is "this the remnant of Jacob" (the descendants of the Nephites/Lamanites) who will begin the building of the New Jerusalem, and they will be assisted by the rest of the remnant of Jacob(Israel) / house of Israel(Jacob), which also includes Gentiles who may not be a genetic remnant of Jacob(Israel), but have been adopted into the house of Israel(Jacob) by joining Christ's church. I hope this helps :)

@@MichaelP_IsMe I disagree. I 100% believe the lord is distinguishing “the remnant of Jacob” apart from the Jews and apart from the BOM remnant.... yes all are a remnant of Jacob. But there are three main branches of the lords Vineyard. Jesus also states in 3rd Nephi that the Jews were mistaken and misunderstood when he told them “other sheep I have that are not of this fold”... the Jews thought he meant the gentiles (when in reality he meant the BOM branch of his vineyard)... Jesus then precedes to tell the BOM remnant (the remnant of Joseph) to not misunderstand who he is referring to when he says he still has yet to visit “other sheep”. He warned us not to misunderstand about the 3rd branch, the lost tribes, the largest branch (Most of Jacob’s seed!), the branch that will be RESTORED in the last days! 3 branches = remnant of Judah, remnant of Joseph, and the Remnant of Jacob. I know it’s a bit confusing but if you reread 3rd Ne with this in mind, oh the treasure of knowledge you’ll embark upon. Hope this helps 😉

The BoM is a fiction dictated by JS when he had his head in a hat with a seer stone as the Elders well know and which is in the LDS Gospel Topic Essay "The Book of Mormon Translation" which the Elders approved in 2013 ... which can be easily browsed by those who want to know the truth. The truth will make you free.

Because starting in about 1920 there were a group of "scholars" at BYU who began espousing the Meso-American theory. They had absolutely zero evidence, but their fanciful writings of how the Mayan temple discoveries were evidence of Nephite civilization filled many Ensign pages and after a time, the theory became accepted as fact. A painter by the name of Arnold Friberg was commissioned by certain wealthy members to paint some pictures with a pseudo Meso-American theme. Those patrons offered free use of the paintings to the Church publications committee. They began in the 1950's to be included in various Sunday School manuals and a few were even included in the paperback missionary edition of the Book of Mormon. As time has gone on and archeologists have translated many Mayan glyphs, it has become clear that the Mayan and Aztect civilizations were not Nephite civilization. Now, with mitochondrial DNA analysis of many Meso-American skeletons available, it is clear that the Meso-Americans are related to Mongolians and Chinese, not those from the Middle East.

Thousands of scholars with differing opinions does not come near the millions of folks who have read the Book of Mormon and sincerely asked God if it is true as recommended in Moroni 10:4 and they now know it is true. Only God knows all truth. Ask Him.

@Григорий Фэша Lolol

@@raparker83861 Your religion is being exposed and more people are leaving daily. Your church keeps moving the goalposts and changing the original "scripture" to suit the changing times. There are too many instances that you cannot explain. How could it be that your prophet, actually many of them, get deceived by Mark Hoffman? They thought his forgeries were real so how could they be fooled if the prophet was in direct contact with God, as you believe?

Yes, there are thousands of elephant skeletons in Michigan, depictions of horses in clay tablets, and some recent evidence of horses in north America. U should look into it :) but don't forget that we are commanded to lean not on the wisdom of man and instead learn by the Spirit with a humble heart

@Aaron J why are you here?

@Aaron J I wonder how many straw men you can set up to knock down? Also is assuming I'm a Utah mormon the same as assuming my gender? Anyway you sound crazy

@Aaron J so you admit that you got called out. Which means you know you're lying. Once again though I have to applaud you on the sheer number of straw men you're knocking down, you're like the Audi Murphy of straw men slayers. Well except for Audi Murphy was a real hero.

@Aaron J how did you call me out? Because all I hear is the ravings of a crazy person. It's also funny because you say I am obsessed with straw man arguments yet you're the one who keeps repeatedly using them. So projecting your own emotions onto someone else and then claiming that's what the person is feeling. That reminds me of a certain type of person, man what is it, oh yeah a liberal. You're a liberal. You're crazy like one too so it all makes sense now. How's your President lord and savior Biden doing? How do his boot heels taste?

It’s WAY more complicated than that. But a very good question

Lol god did it

What if the people we think are the israelites arent related to Abraham, Issac or Jacob? They may be israel by conversion and culture but not bloodline. What if the natives are really related to the patriarchs and not who we think israel is today.

You should try looking into research that doesn't automatically validate your beliefs too. Its not developed by the devil or people that hate the church. Much of it is done by mormon archeologists who are just honest and try to be non bias in their complete lack of evidence supporting the geography in the book of mormon. If you are serious about what you believe, you will seek out truth, and not just claim everything that disagrees with your preconceptions as "of the devil"

@@curtisowen3233 your are arguing with - a figment of your own imagination. Where did i say anything was of the devil? Over 99% of the continent has not been dug. You are assuming a lack of evidence found means the non-existence of evidence. You are also assuming that compelling evidence, if found, will not still be subject to intellectual biases and barriers to acceptance. I tell you 90% of the time people have decided which camp they are in before they even open their eyes and look. Therefore most people will not even consider the possibility of archaeological evidence because it contradicts their preconceptions. The capacity to believe is a sign of an open mind. Disbelief is a mind that has been closed. Dont make the mistake of making assumptions about some stranger on the internet you have never met and never will meet.

YES. SO. TRUE. .......

Who is considered "the original inhabitants?"

that is not what the meant, that the land was going back

@Aaron J I'll take that as sarcasm. So, since you seem to know then, with the inhabitants of the Americas for the last SEVERAL thousands of years, WHO these days would still be an original inhabitant after these many thousands of years? Please don't say "native Americans." Because they are not native, and they are only American because of where they are now

@Aaron J I'm not mormon. No, you do not make yourself clear. You still do not answer the question. I guess we can leave it at that - you do not know who today (what people, tribe, etc) is considered to be a remnant of the original inhabitants. No need to reply unless you are compelled to have the last word.

@@MasonMiner not the Europeans. Lol

By the way I went to a dig that Wayne did on the site he says was the Temple mound, across the river from Nauvoo. He, as far as I know, has not dated that site.

Jesus is in the original ancient metal plates that The Book of Mormon was engraved on, and the very first printed edition in 1830, and every edition ever since then.

Fascinating