Introduction and Purpose

I have always loved apolo­get­ics. I enjoy dis­cussing doc­trine, scrip­tur­al ver­sus and evi­dence that sup­port or are seen as evi­dence against the Book of Mor­mon or LDS church. For that rea­son I have stud­ied the most com­mon com­plaints and evi­dence for and against the church.

In my teen years, when some teens would be doing reg­u­lar teen activ­i­ties and tak­ing dates to the Mesa tem­ple pageant, I would go to the Mesa tem­ple pageant — not to watch the pageant, but to have a “dis­cus­sion” with the evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tians hand­ing out their tracks. From the time I was 17 until I left on my mis­sion, I believed I was prepar­ing myself to not only win con­verts but to defend the LDS church. I was very sur­prised when I received my mis­sion call to Syd­ney Aus­tralia to teach athe­ist and Bud­dhist Chi­nese immi­grants in Man­darin Chi­nese. While in Aus­tralia, I con­sid­ered myself lucky if a came across a Chi­nese immi­grant that was vague­ly famil­iar with the bib­li­cal Moses or Adam and Eve. Need­less to say, all the time I spent research­ing cri­tiques of the Book of Mor­mon and Bible was not uti­lized, but I still enjoyed my mis­sion and found it immense­ly chal­leng­ing and rewarding.

After my mis­sion, I still stud­ied apolo­get­ics, but by 2004 my enthu­si­asm for LDS apolo­get­ics start­ed to wane. A lot of that was due to the type of evi­dence com­ing out in sup­port of the Mesoamer­i­can mod­el. Non-LDS archae­ol­o­gists and anthro­pol­o­gists could not sup­port the claims being made by their LDS col­leagues. I found this to be con­fus­ing, but many times with LDS apolo­get­ics when those Mesoamer­i­can cri­tiques could not be suit­ably answered, a wait and see atti­tude was tak­en. I think of that time peri­od as the dark ages of Book of Mor­mon geog­ra­phy and DNA apolo­get­ics. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, my opin­ion is that LDS researchers suc­cess­ful­ly proved that the Book of Mor­mon did not take place in Mesoamerica.

Around 2011 I watched a four hour long video by Rod Mel­drum about the North Amer­i­can Book of Mor­mon Geog­ra­phy mod­el. I found the video extreme­ly excit­ing in that it all made sense why the gold­en plates were found in New York state and cer­tain scrip­tur­al ver­sus found in the Book of Mor­mon and Doc­trine and Covenants. This video reignit­ed my excite­ment about apolo­get­ics, and I began watch­ing oth­er videos by Wayne May about the Heart­land Book of Mor­mon geog­ra­phy model.

At about this point, I start­ed going on blogs that were crit­i­cal of the LDS church and its claims. There was one blog in par­tic­u­lar that was run by a geneti­cist. I start­ed post­ing some of the Rod Mel­drum and Wayne May evi­dence in the com­ment sec­tion of his blog. At one point a dis­cus­sion about Mic­mac char­ac­ters ensued regard­ing their orig­i­na­tion. Were they a cre­ation of Father Chret­ian Le Cler­cq, or did he use already exist­ing Mic­mac char­ac­ters? I found a trans­lat­ed copy of Father Clercq’s book and start­ed read­ing to find the answer to this ques­tion. While read­ing his book, I read what appeared to be Christ’s vis­it to Amer­i­ca, the Gen­e­sis account, the flood, and sev­er­al Hebrew and Book of Mor­mon tra­di­tions and beliefs that appear to sup­port the Book of Mor­mon and Bible. This was about two years ago; from there I con­tin­ued to research more evi­dence writ­ten by ear­ly explor­ers and his­to­ri­ans and expand­ed my research by geneti­cist and anthro­pol­o­gist regard­ing DNA and arti­facts. Unlike the Mesoamer­i­can mod­el, all quotes and accounts in this doc­u­ment are from non-LDS archae­ol­o­gists, anthro­pol­o­gists, geneti­cists, and his­to­ri­ans. The research and accounts date from 2015 all the way back to the 16th century.

20 Reasons why the Book of Mormon is a Historical Match in North America

In the 6 sec­tions of this essay, I pro­vide evi­dence that the North Amer­i­can geog­ra­phy mod­el answers all the nor­mal cri­tiques of the Book of Mormon“s his­toric­i­ty. The fol­low­ing 20 points out­line the evi­dence I have gathered:

  1. The old­est known Hopewell Indi­an civ­i­liza­tion began around 500BC at Crys­tal Riv­er Flori­da, a time­line that match­es the Nephite arrival in North America
  2. The Hopewell dis­ap­pear­ance of 400AD-500AD match­es the Nephite geno­cide time­line from the Book of Mor­mon, the last epis­tle writ­ten in 421AD
  3. The Hopewell Indi­ans had a south to north migra­tion that match­es the Nephite south to north migra­tion, as described in the Book of Mormon
  4. The last Hopewell Indi­an sites are in close prox­im­i­ty to the Hill Cumorah, a geo­graph­i­cal match for Moroni’s farewell
  5. Some North Amer­i­can Indi­an tribes had fair skins and appear Euro­pean to ear­ly set­tlers and missionaries
  6. Some North Amer­i­can Indi­an tribes believed that they sailed to Amer­i­can from anoth­er country
  7. The Ade­na Indi­ans close­ly match the Jared­ite civ­i­liza­tion in the Book of Mor­mon – such as the end of the Ade­na cul­ture around 200BC
  8. Hopewell Indi­ans had a Cau­casian DNA mark­er called hap­logroup X that is also found in Israel and Europe, but not East Asia (page 2)
  9. The Hopewell (and Adena/Jaredites) Indi­ans had an advanced met­al­lur­gy that includ­ed the use of cop­per and mete­oric iron tools, breast-plates, head-plates and jew­el­ry as described in the Book of Mor­mon, includ­ing: (page 3)
    • Smelt­ing
    • Iron Swords — ear­ly Amer­i­can set­tlers found oxi­dized Amer­i­can Indi­an iron swords in Indi­an mound ruins
    • Cop­per and brass plates with hiero­glyphs, Hebrew, and unknown char­ac­ters on them
    • Steel bows
  10. For­ti­fi­ca­tions: Hopewell sites had large earth­en mounds with wood­en pick­et post and tow­ers – this fits Book of Mor­mon descrip­tions (page 3)
  11. Ancient bat­tle grounds in the state of New York and oth­er mass bur­ial pits (page 3)
  12. Hopewell had fine twined linen and woven cloth­ing (page 3)
  13. Hopewell had an exten­sive and advanced trade sys­tem with High­ways that stretched to the Rocky ties to Joseph Smith rev­e­la­tion of Zelph (page 3)
  14. Ani­mals and modes of trav­el are con­sis­tent: (page 3)
    • Ele­phants
    • Cat­tle
    • Hors­es & Chariots
    • Goats
    • Bees
    • Sheep
    • Cureloms and Cumoms
  15. Bar­ley and wheat in Hopewell agri­cul­ture (page 3)
  16. Native Amer­i­can tribes had ancient met­al tablets (page 3)
  17. Native Amer­i­can tribes tell of los­ing their scrip­ture and the gospel (page 3)
  18. Native Amer­i­can cus­toms and words that match up to Book of Mor­mon words and places (page 4)
  19. Many oth­er ties between Book of Mor­mon and North Amer­i­ca: (page 4)
    • Indi­an his­to­ries include Christ’s appear­ance in America
    • The New Madrid Fault
    • Keeshku­men
    • Bury the Hatchet
    • Sto­ry of Laman­ite daughters
    • King Benjamin’s Tower
    • Med­i­cine
    • Waters of Mormon
    • Hill Cumorah
    • Met­al Plates
    • Coins
    • Ken­tucky (Riv­er of Blood)
    • Riv­er Sidon is most like­ly the Mis­sis­sip­pi River
  20. Vers­es of scrip­ture show­ing the geog­ra­phy sup­ports the Heart­land mod­el (page 5)

Why North American Indians and ‑only- North American Indians are Direct Descendants of Lehi

  • Hopewell Indi­ans match the time­frames and geog­ra­phy of the Book of Mormon
  • North Amer­i­can Indi­ans have a Cau­casian DNA marker
  • The Native Amer­i­cans believed they removed and killed off a Cau­casian race of Indian
  • North Amer­i­can Indi­ans have his­to­ries of sail­ing from anoth­er country

Hopewell Indian

The old­est Hopewell site Crys­tal Riv­er Flori­da close prox­im­i­ty to the ocean is a like­ly match for Lehi’s land­ing in North America.

The Hopewell dis­ap­pear­ance of 400AD-500AD match­es the Nephite geno­cide time­line from the Book of Mor­mon the last epis­tle writ­ten in 421AD.

While the cause of the cul­tur­al shift away from Hopewell prac­tices may be unclear, this change had occurred by around 400AD.
(Thel­er and Boszhardt 2003:121).

16 rune­stones found in North Amer­i­ca are gen­er­al­ly believed to be fake. These rune­stones have what appears to be Hebrew, Phoeni­cian, and Greek-like char­ac­ters. These are the Bat Creek Stone, AVM Rune­stone, Bourne stone, Grave Creek Stone, Heav­en­er Rune­stone, Kens­ing­ton Rune­stone, Nar­ra­gansett Rune­stone, Okla­homa rune­stones, Poteau Rune­stone, Spir­it Pond rune­stones, Vérendrye Rune­stone, Shawnee Rune­stone, Ohio Key stone, Ohio Deca­logue stone, The Jon­son Brad­ner stone, and the Michi­gan Relics. The gen­er­al­ly accept­ed the­o­ry behind these rune­stones is that 19th and 20th cen­tu­ry farm­ers and cit­i­zens had an insa­tiable desire to make fake Indi­an paleo Hebrew, Greek and Phoeni­cian like arti­facts and had the abil­i­ty to do so. I find this problematic.

Hopewell Indian Interaction Sphere

The old­est Hopewell civ­i­liza­tion start­ed near the Gulf Coast and moved north to the Great Lakes area to Include New York. See the map below:

image001.jpg

Hill Cumorah

At the final bat­tles at the Hill Cumorah, near­ly a quar­ter of a mil­lion Nephites were slaugh­tered. An untold num­ber of Laman­ites were also killed. Indi­an leg­end sup­ports this great and ter­ri­ble bat­tle that caused the death of hun­dreds of thou­sands of people.

Thayen­da­negea Mohawk/Iroquois Chief:

From the ear­li­est knowl­edge the white men have pos­sessed of the coun­try of west­ern New York, the Paint­ed Post has been not­ed as a geo­graph­i­cal land­mark. When first tra­versed by the white men, a large oak­en post stood at the spot, which has retained the name to this day. It was paint­ed in the Indi­an man­ner, and was guard­ed as a mon­u­ment by the Indi­ana, who renewed it as often as it showed evi­dence of going to decay. Tra­di­tion says it was a mon­u­ment of great antiq­ui­ty, mark­ing the spot of a great and bloody bat­tle, accord­ing to some state­ments. Accord­ing to oth­ers, it was erect­ed to per­pet­u­ate the mem­o­ry of some great war-chief.” (My opin­ion is the great Chief is Mor­mon I can’t prove it though)
(Paint­ed Post, New York is locat­ed about 70 miles away from Hill Cumorah)
(Stone 1838 pg. 318)

In ref­er­ence to Buf­fa­lo, New York in close prox­im­i­ty to what is the nar­row neck of land and the Hill Cumorah:

Tra­di­tion fix­es upon this spot as the scene of the final and most bloody con­flict between the Iro­quois and the ”Gah-kwas” or Eries, — a tra­di­tion which has been sup­posed to derive some sanc­tion from the num­ber of frag­ments of decayed human bones which are scat­tered over the area.”
(Squier 1849)

Caucasian North American Indians

Since tra­di­tion­al Jews are known to be Cau­casian or of lighter skin col­or. It’s not hard to fath­om that the Tribe of Man­asseh, the tribe Lehi descend­ed from, also would have Cau­casian or lighter skin col­or. Hap­logroup X found in North Amer­i­can Indi­ans is con­sid­ered to be a Cau­casian DNA mark­er. Oth­er North, Cen­tral, and South Amer­i­can Indi­ans show the hap­logroups A, B, C, and D, which came from migrat­ing Asian eth­nic tribes of that peri­od, with which Laman’s seed would have like­ly intermarried.

The Nephites became Laman­ites and Laman­ites became Nephites sug­gest­ing dif­fer­ent shades in skin col­or as the Book of Mor­mon states.

A recent sur­vey of Euro­pean mtD­NA has demon­strat­ed the pres­ence of the same “oth­er” hap­lo­type motif in mod­ern Euro­pean pop­u­la­tions, in which it is called “Hap­logroup X.””
(MtD­NA hap­logroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?)

To date, hap­logroup X has not been unam­bigu­ous­ly iden­ti­fied in Asia, rais­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty that some Native Amer­i­can founders were of Cau­casian ances­try.”
(MtD­NA hap­logroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?)

Near­ly one-third of Native Amer­i­can genes come from west Eurasian peo­ples with ties to the Mid­dle East and Europe.

(Nation­al Geo­graph­ic “Great Surprise”—Native Amer­i­cans Have West Eurasian Origins”)

On the basis of genet­ic analy­sis of some serum and red-cell pro­tein poly­mor­phisms, Sza­th­mary and Reed (1972) and Sza­th­mary et al. (1974) were able to reveal the pres­ence of “Cau­casian” alle­les in the south­east­ern Ojib­wa and to give an esti­mate of Cau­casian admix­ture of ~30%; how­ev­er, more recent data on oth­er auto­so­mal locus poly­mor­phisms indi­cate that the genet­ic admix­ture may be as great as 50%.

(mtD­NA and Y Chro­mo­some-Spe­cif­ic Poly­mor­phisms in Mod­ern Ojib­wa: Impli­ca­tions about the Ori­gin of Their Gene Pool)

William Penn wrote the fol­low­ing to a friend in Eng­land. “I found them [the Indi­ans of the east­ern shore of North Amer­i­ca] with like coun­te­nances with the Hebrew race; and their chil­dren of so live­ly a resem­blance to them that a man would think him­self in Duke’s place, or Bar­ry Street, in Lon­don, when he sees them.”
(Mur­ray 1908)

The Chero­kee are of a lighter col­or than the greater num­ber of the North Amer­i­can Indi­ans that are known to me.”
(Bar­ton 1798 pg. XIV)

They (Algo­nquin Indi­ans) have the same com­plex­ion as the French.”
(Jou­ven­cy 1710)

About Gaspesian/Micmac Indians

Although chil­dren are born among them with hair of dif­fer­ent colours, as in Europe.”
(Cler­cq 1680 pg. 237)

The hue or col­or of their bod­ies is gen­er­al­ly not as white as ours though some quite fair skinned ones are to be found and most are born white.”
(In Mohawk Coun­try: Ear­ly Nar­ra­tives about a Native Peo­ple, by Dean R. Snow, Charles T. Gehring, William A. Starna)

The Amlicites were Nephites who want­ed to be ruled by a king instead of appoint­ed judges. These Nephites rebelled and in their rebel­lion joined the Laman­ites. There was one prob­lem though. I believe that their skin col­or was of a lighter Cau­casian skin col­or. The seed of Laman on their arrival in the new world most like­ly inter­mar­ried with the indige­nous Asian eth­nic tribes of their day. So the Amlicites would have most like­ly looked like Nephites instead of Laman­ites. So in order for the Amlicites to dis­tin­guish them­selves from the Nephites they marked their fore­heads with red paint. The Chero­kee Indi­ans are excel­lent can­di­dates to be the Amlicites. From his­tor­i­cal accounts to the cur­rent day many Chero­kee who claim to be full blood­ed Chero­kee have Euro­pean fea­tures and skin col­or. Its looks as though red paint con­tin­ued to be a part of Laman­ite culture.

Alma 3:4 – And the Amlicites were dis­tin­guished from the Nephites, for they had marked them­selves with red in their fore­heads after the man­ner of the Lamanites.

The hap­logroup X Cau­casian DNA mark­er might be demon­strat­ed in sev­er­al George Cait­lyn Native Amer­i­can por­traits. This is assum­ing that the Native Amer­i­can chiefs and indi­vid­u­als have no Euro­pean admix­ture of the 18th and 19th cen­tu­ry, since the por­traits were paint­ed in the 19th century.

George Caitlin paint­ed sev­er­al Native Amer­i­can por­traits, includ­ing the eight por­traits shown below.

The Chero­kee are of a lighter col­or than the greater num­ber of the North Amer­i­can Indi­ans that are known to me.”
(Bar­ton 1798 pg. XIV)

Wolf Pawnee Tribe, his name
trans­lates to Brave Chief
Chero­kee Indi­an, Cól-lee, Band Chief
image002.jpgimage008.jpg

They (Algo­nquin Indi­ans) have the same com­plex­ion as the French.”
(JOSEPH, JOUVENCY 1710)

(Mic­mac Indi­an chil­dren) are born among them with hair of dif­fer­ent colours, as in Europe.”
(Cler­cq 1680, pg. 237)

Sauk Fox Tribe, Pam‑a hoLay-láw-she-kaw, Goes up
the Riv­er, an Aged Chief
image004.jpgimage010.jpg
Mis­souria Tribe, Haw-che-ke-sug-gaShawnee, Lay-loo-ah-pee-ai-shee-kaw
image006.jpgimage007.jpg
Nako­ta Sioux, Tah-zee-keh-da-chaChief Bread of the Onei­da Tribe
image008.jpgimage009.jpg

It’s inter­est­ing that many of the por­traits with Euro­pean fea­tures also wear a tur­ban like head dress.

A White Race and its Extermination

Con­cern­ing Hat­tera Indi­ans of North Carolina:

These Hat­tera tell us, that sev­er­al of their Ances­tors were white Peo­ple, and could talk in a Book, as we do; the Truth of which is con­firmed by gray eyes being found fre­quent­ly amongst these Indi­ans, and no oth­ers.”
(John Law­son 1709 pg. 62)

The Nephites who I believe had Cau­casian DNA were killed off by the Laman­ites. The North Amer­i­can Indi­ans have a leg­end of a for­eign white race being com­plete­ly killed or removed from cer­tain areas.

Cap­tain Brant Thayen­da­negea was a well-known Iro­quois and Mohawk leader and Chief who sided with the British dur­ing the Rev­o­lu­tion­ary war. He was born of Iro­quois par­ents who con­vert­ed to Chris­tian­i­ty. They gave him a Chris­t­ian name Joseph Brant. The quote is from his biography:

I was curi­ous to learn in the course of my con­ver­sa­tions with Cap­tain Brant (Thayen­da­negea Mohawk/Iroquois Chief), what infor­ma­tion he could give me respect­ing the tumuli (mounds) which are found on and near the mar­gin of the rivers and lakes, from the St. Lawrence to the Mis­sis­sip­pi. He stat­ed, in reply, that the sub­ject had long been agi­tat­ed, but yet remained in some obscu­ri­ty. A tra­di­tion, he said, pre­vailed among the dif­fer­ent nations of Indi­ans through-out that whole exten­sive range of coun­try, and had been hand­ed down time immemo­r­i­al, that in an age long gone by, there came white men from a for­eign coun­try, and by con­sent of the Indi­ans estab­lished trad­ing-hous­es and set­tle­ments where these tumuli (mounds) are found. A friend­ly inter­course was con­tin­ued for sev­er­al years; many of the white men brought their wives, and had chil­dren born to them; and addi­tions to their num­bers were made year­ly from their own coun­try. These cir­cum­stances at length gave rise to jeal­ousies among the Indi­ans, and fears began to be enter­tained in regard to the increas­ing num­bers, wealth, and ulte­ri­or views of the new com­ers; appre­hend­ing that becom­ing strong, they might one day seize upon the coun­try as their own. A secret coun­cil, com­posed of the chiefs of all the dif­fer­ent nations from the St. Lawrence to the Mis­sis­sip­pi, was there­fore con­voked; the result of which, after long delib­er­a­tion, was a res­o­lu­tion that on a cer­tain night des­ig­nat­ed for that pur­pose, all their white neigh­bors, men, women and chil­dren, should be exter­mi­nat­ed.“
(Stone 1838 pg. 484)

Here the Indi­ans tell us there was a war in ear­ly times, against an Indi­an town, traces of which are yet vis­i­ble, corn pits, etc. This was inhab­it­ed by a dis­tinct nation, nei­ther Iro­quois nor Delawares, who spoke a pecu­liar lan­guage, and were called Tehoti­tachse, against them the Five Nations warred and rout­ed them out; the Cayu­gas for a time held a num­ber cap­tive, but the nation and the lan­guage are now exter­mi­nat­ed and extinct.”
(Mur­ray 1908 pg. 46)

Natchez Indi­ans of Mis­sis­sip­pi, in ref­er­ence to an ancient race of Indi­an who pre­ced­ed them and even­tu­al­ly were defeated:

I did not fail to ask him who these war­riors of fire were. “They were,” said he, “beard­ed men, white but swarthy… They had come on float­ing vil­lages from the side where the sun ris­es. They con­quered the ancients of the coun­try, of whom they killed as many as there are spears of grass in the Prairies, and in the begin­ning they were good friends of our broth­ers, but ulti­mate­ly they made them sub­mit as well as the ancients of the coun­try, as our Suns (lead­ers) had fore­seen and had fore­told to them.””
(Swan­ton 1909 pg. 184)

There is a dim but per­sis­tent tra­di­tion of a strange white race pre­ced­ing the Chero­kee, some of the sto­ries even going so far as to locate their for­mer set­tle­ments and to iden­ti­fy them as the authors of the ancient works found in the coun­try. The ear­li­est ref­er­ence appears to be that of Bar­ton in 1797, on the state­ment of a gen­tle­man whom he quotes as a valu­able author­i­ty upon the south­ern tribes. “The Chero­kee tell us, that when they first arrived in the coun­try which they inhab­it, they found it pos­sessed by cer­tain ‘moon-eyed peo­ple,’ who could not see in the day-time. These wretch­es they expelled.” He seems to con­sid­er them an albi­no race.* Hay­wood, twen­ty-six years lat­er, says that the invad­ing Chero­kee found “white peo­ple” near the head of the Lit­tle Ten­nessee, with forts extend­ing thence down the Ten­nessee as far as Chicka­mau­ga creek. He gives the loca­tion of three of these forts. The Chero­kee made war against them and drove them to the mouth of Big Chicka­mau­ga creek, where they entered into a treaty and agreed to remove if per­mit­ted to depart in peace. Per­mis­sion being grant­ed, they aban­doned the coun­try. Else­where he speaks of this extir­pat­ed white race as hav­ing extend­ed into Ken­tucky and prob­a­bly also into west­ern Ten­nessee, accord­ing to the con­cur­rent tra­di­tions of dif­fer­ent tribes.”
(Mooney 1902 pg. 22)

Did not these skele­tons belong to per­sons of the same race with those white peo­ple, who were extir­pat­ed in part, and in part dri­ven from Ken­tucky, and prob­a­bly also from West Ten­nessee, as Indi­an tra­di­tion reports?”
(Hay­wood 1823 pg. 166)

An old Indi­an, in con­ver­sa­tion with Colonel James F. Moore, of Ken­tucky, informed him that the west­ern coun­try, and par­tic­u­lar­ly Ken­tucky, had once been inhab­it­ed by white peo­ple, but that they were exter­mi­nat­ed by the Indi­ans. That the last bat­tle was fought at the falls of Ohio, and that the Indi­ans suc­ceed­ed in dri­ving the Abo­rig­ines into a small island below the rapids, where the whole of them were cut to pieces.”
(M.H. Frost 1819; On the abo­rig­ines of the West­ern Countries)

Mr. Thomas Bod­ley was informed by Indi­ans of dif­fer­ent tribes north­west of the Ohio, that they had under­stood from their old men, and that it had been a tra­di­tion among their sev­er­al nations, that Ken­tucky had been set­tled by whites, and that they had been exter­mi­nat­ed by war. They were of opin­ion that the old for­ti­fi­ca­tions, now to be seen in Ken­tucky and Ohio, were the pro­duc­tions of those white inhab­i­tants. Wap­pock­anit­ta, a Shawnee chief, near a hun­dred and twen­ty years old, liv­ing on the Auglaze Riv­er, con­firmed the above tra­di­tion.”
(M.H. Frost 1819; On the abo­rig­ines of the West­ern Countries)

Sailed Here from another Country

In the Book of Mor­mon it states that Lehi and his fam­i­ly sailed from the Mid­dle East to anoth­er coun­try. Some North Amer­i­can Indi­an tribes have a belief that they arrived to the North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent through sail­ing from anoth­er country.

Gaspesian/Micmac belief of how they arrived on the North American continent

The Gaspesian/Micmac have two the­o­ries of how they arrived. The first is by sail­ing from anoth­er coun­try, and the oth­er belief fits the Gen­e­sis account and flood.

Oth­ers hold that this new world has been peo­pled by cer­tain indi­vid­u­als who, hav­ing embarked upon the sea for the pur­pose of estab­lish­ing a colony in for­eign parts, were sur­prised by storm and tem­pest, which threw them upon the coasts of North Amer­i­ca. Here they were unfor­tu­nate­ly ship­wrecked, and, with their ships, they lost every­thing which they must have had with them of prop­er­ty, and of the things which they val­ued most in the world. Affairs were such that this ship­wreck hav­ing left them whol­ly with­out hope of ever return­ing into their own coun­try.”
(Cler­cq 1680, pg. 85)

Iroquois legend of a foreign people who sailed to the continent then were destroyed

Cusick’s book I believe is about the Nephite and Laman­ite Inter­ac­tions and fight­ing except from the Laman­ite per­spec­tive told in Iro­quois Legend.

After a long time a num­ber of for­eign peo­ple sailed from a port unknown; but unfor­tu­nate­ly before reached their des­ti­na­tion the winds drove them con­trary ; at length their ship wrecked some­where on the south­ern part of the Great Island, and many of the crews per­ished ; a few active per­sons were saved ….They imme­di­ate­ly select­ed a place for res­i­dence and built a small for­ti­fi­ca­tion in order to pro­vide against the attacks of furi­ous beasts….After many years the for­eign peo­ple became numer­ous, and extend­ed their set­tle­ments ; but after­wards they were destroyed”
(Cusick 1838, pg. 16)

Natchez Indians of Mississippi concerning a race of Indian that preceded them

They had come on float­ing vil­lages from the side where the sun ris­es.”
(Swan­ton 1909, pg. 184)

There is a rock, called the Dighton rock, on Taunton Riv­er, near Dighton, in Mass­a­chu­setts. It is a large rock in the mar­gin of the sea, and upon it are inscrip­tions in strange char­ac­ters, part­ly alpha­bet­i­cal and part­ly hiero­glyph­ic… In anoth­er scene, there is a ves­sel, with its masts, flags, and long rud­der, as in the ori­en­tal ves­sels at this day…The sub­ject gen­er­al­ly seems intend­ed to com­mem­o­rate the arrival of a peo­ple there from the ocean and the east, and who, hav­ing had inter­course with that natives)
(Hay­wood 1823, pg. 329)

The Jaredites

  • The Ade­na (Jared­ite) cul­ture end­ing at 200BC is a Book of Mor­mon match.
  • Bones dis­cov­ered in Hopewell and Ade­na Indi­an sites were of larg­er than nor­mal size. Some of the skele­tons were esti­mat­ed to be 7 feet in height. The Broth­er of Jared was con­sid­ered a mighty man large in stature.
  • The Ade­na civ­i­liza­tion also had breast­plates and cloth as described in the Book of Mormon.

Adena Culture

The Ade­na cul­ture is the civ­i­liza­tion that is most like­ly can­di­date to be the Jared­ites as explained in the Book of Mor­mon. The end of the Ade­na cul­ture is a match for the Book of Mor­mon of 200BC. The Jared­ites are stat­ed have breast­plates it’s shown that the Ade­na had a form of met­al­lur­gy. The Jared­ite writ­ten lan­guage was most like­ly cuneiform. Cuneiform is known to be writ­ten on met­al and clay tablets. The Ade­na are known to have stone tablets with styl­ized geo­met­ric designs on their tablets. Cor­re­la­tions between Ade­na and Hopewell in some ways also help sup­port the Ade­na as the Jared­ite people.

It’s believed that the Ade­na civ­i­liza­tion began around 1000 BC. The Jared­ites would have arrived on the Amer­i­can con­ti­nent around 2000 BC to the time of the Tow­er of Babel. Some the­olo­gians have sug­gest­ed the tow­er babel could be the Mesopotamia Zig­gu­rat of Baby­lon or the city of Ur.

The Mesopotami­an cul­ture was dis­tinct in sev­er­al ways. In one par­tic­u­lar man­ner is the shape Mesopotami­an built boats, it is dis­tinct from the major­i­ty of oth­er cul­tures. The Mesopotami­ans built boats that were round called cor­a­cles. The Book of Mor­mon states that the Broth­er of Jared built boats that are tight like unto a dish. The cir­cu­lar design of the Broth­er of Jared’s boats in today’s stan­dards is an odd and pecu­liar design. But dur­ing his time in what could be Mesopotamia the cir­cu­lar design of the boat would fit right in. Iraq peo­ple in what is ancient Mesopotamia con­tin­ued to make round cor­a­cles up until the 1990s when the cor­a­cles were replaced with mod­ern boats.

Neo Baby­lon­ian Ziggurat

Because the Ade­na cul­ture began around 1000BC and the tow­er of Babel dat­ed to 2000BC. I’m going to assume the orig­i­nal set­tle­ments of the Broth­er of Jared have not been found. Accord­ing to scrip­ture the broth­er of Jared land­ed the eight cir­cu­lar boats in what would now be Lake Ontario. The boats as described in the scrip­tures were light upon the water. In this way the boats must have been blown up the St Lawrence Sea­way to Lake Ontario.

The end of the Ade­na cul­ture is believed to have hap­pened around 200BC. It’s assumed that the Ade­na even­tu­al­ly became part of the Hopewell peo­ple the Ade­na super­im­pos­ing the Hopewell cul­ture as their own. There are aspects of this that line up with the Book of Mormon.

From the time of Babel the Broth­er of Jared’s pos­ter­i­ty con­tin­ues until Cori­antumr leads his peo­ple in war to the point that he is the only per­son alive from the Jared­ites. After the slaugh­ter of all his peo­ple Cori­antumr lives with the Mulekites for the space of nine moons. As explained in the Book of Omni the peri­od of Cori­antumr liv­ing with the Mulekites and the destruc­tion of the Jared­ites is between 323BC-130BC. This time peri­od falls in line with the Ade­na cul­ture end or being absorbed into the Hopewell cul­ture. We know that the Mulekites who Cori­antumr stayed with became Nephites. It states that the Mulekites learned the Nephite lan­guage and that Mosi­ah became their king. Since archae­ol­o­gist are not show­ing a third civ­i­liza­tion along with the Ade­na and Hopewell. I’m going to spec­u­late that the Mulekites are being mis­tak­en as Hopewell pos­si­bly Adena.

There are archae­o­log­i­cal aspects and his­tor­i­cal records giv­en in the Book of Mor­mon that do line up cer­tain­ly not per­fect­ly but in pieces. Archae­o­log­i­cal records show that the Ade­na peo­ple and the Hopewell com­bined togeth­er at 200BC. Since archae­ol­o­gists have not sug­gest­ed that the Ade­na peo­ple dis­ap­peared it obvi­ous­ly an aspect that does not fit the his­tor­i­cal record of the Book of Mor­mon. But I don’t think it’s com­plete­ly out­landish to sug­gest that the Mulekites and Nephites took over Ade­na sites as their own after the geno­cide of the Jared­ites. But some sites stayed dis­tinct­ly Ade­na and do not show the Hopewell admix­ture after 200BC sug­gest­ing in my unpro­fes­sion­al opin­ion those sites were aban­doned by the Ade­na because they were all killed by war with their own peo­ple. Anthro­pol­o­gist can spec­u­late as to why but only a study of the Book of Mor­mon in my unpro­fes­sion­al will reveal mys­ter­ies of the Ade­na and Hopewell cultures.

Below is a map of Ade­na and Hopewell sites. One can see the admix­ture of Ade­na with Hopewell around 200BC and Ade­na sites that were aban­doned. Fort Ancient sites date to 1000AD are believed to have descend­ed from the Hopewell (Laman­ites). One can be very well look­ing at cities men­tioned in the Book of Mormon.

image011.jpg

A con­tro­ver­sial aspect of the argu­ment is that I believe that the Ade­na cul­ture are the pos­ter­i­ty of the giants list­ed in the Bible. The bible states that a race of giants lived in cer­tain areas of the Old World. Goliath based on Jose­phus, and the 4th cen­tu­ry Sep­tu­agint man­u­scripts was 6 feet 9 inch­es tall. The Book of Mor­mon sup­ports the idea that the Jared­ites were of large size. The Book of Mor­mon states the Broth­er of Jared was con­sid­ered a large and mighty man (Ether 1:34). Also when the Nephites found Jared­ite breast plates they con­sid­ered them of large size (Mosi­ah 8:10). There is archae­o­log­i­cal evi­dence of 20th cen­tu­ry researchers and ear­ly set­tlers find­ing skele­tons that were of large size some being sev­en feet tall.

The work­men who were engaged in dig­ging ditch­es for under­drain­ing had a few days before come upon large quan­ti­ties of pot­tery and skele­tons of large size, but had care­less­ly bro­ken them instead of pre­serv­ing them. “
(Peet 1892 pg. 163)

These will prove demon­stra­tive­ly, that the ancient inhab­i­tants of this coun­try, either the prim­i­tive or sec­ondary set­tlers, were of gigan­tic stature, com­pared with the present races of Indi­ans.”
(Hay­wood)

He took a jaw bone and applied it to his own face, and when his chin touched the con­cave of the chin bone, the hin­der ends of the jaw bone did not touch the skin of his face on either side.”
(Hay­wood)

The remains of bur­ial 40 is one of the largest known to Ade­na; the skull-foot field mea­sure­ment is 84 inch­es (7 feet).”
(The Dover Mound, William S Webb and Charles Snow, 1959)

This indi­vid­ual was of large pro­por­tions. When mea­sured in the tomb his length was approx­i­mate­ly 7.04 feet. All the long bones were heavy and pos­sessed marked emi­nences for the attach­ment of mus­cles.”
(Mounds for the Dead, by Don Dra­goo, 1963).

Two out­stand­ing traits have been not­ed repeat­ed­ly for this group. One is the pro­trud­ing and mas­sive chin often with promi­nent bilat­er­al pro­tru­sions. The sec­ond trait is the large size of many of the males and some of the females. A male of six feet was com­mon and some indi­vid­u­als approach­ing sev­en feet in height have been found, for exam­ple, Bur­ial 40 in the Dover Mound and Bur­ial 54 in the Cre­sap Mound. Some of the females in the Dover Mound also were more than six feet in height. Not only were these Ade­na peo­ple tall but also the mas­sive­ness of the bones indi­cates pow­er­ful­ly built indi­vid­u­als. The head was gen­er­al­ly big with a large cra­nial capac­i­ty.”
(Mounds for the Dead, by Don Dra­goo, 1963).

Nephi and the Broth­er of Jared who’s pos­ter­i­ty would be the Nephites and Jared­ites are both depict­ed as large men (1 Nephi 4:31, Ether 1:34). Mor­mon also con­sid­ered to be large in stature.
(Mor­mon 2:1)

David Cusick book enti­tled Ancient His­to­ry of The Six Nations is about the leg­ends of the Iro­quois. I believe their leg­ends has a hodge­podge of the Jared­ites and Nephite his­to­ries mixed togeth­er. The tra­di­tion­al lands of the Iro­quois includes New York and they have leg­ends of exter­mi­nat­ing a white race of Indi­an. The six nations are com­posed of the Mohawk, Onei­da, Cayu­ga, Seneca, Ononda­ga, and Tus­caro­ra nations. Some of these tribes might have been Nephites. But in these leg­ends are signs that their ances­tors knew of the Jaredites.

In the His­to­ry of the Six Nations one of their leg­end a pow­er­ful tribe of “ston­ish giants” enter the coun­try. The Iro­quois bat­tle the giants but the giants are too pow­er­ful. The Iro­quois God sees the dis­tress of his peo­ple and devices a plan to get rid of these giants. A band of giants are tricked into to enter­ing a ravine and a mass of rocks fall onto the giants killing all but one. This one sur­vivor tell the oth­er giants and the giants seek asy­lum in the North Coun­try. There are bits and pieces to this leg­end that match the his­tor­i­cal record of the Book of Mor­mon. One is that these giants have forts of pro­tec­tion. The giants had stony exte­ri­or which I would attribute breast plates and head plates that the Jared­ites had. The giants had clubs which I’m going to inter­pret as swords. I believe the use of swords got lost with time. Anoth­er impor­tant aspect is that the Iro­quois in this Leg­end nev­er kill off these ston­ish giants but the rea­son why the leave Iro­quois coun­try is due to their God. Their God kills off a band of giants there is one lone sur­vivor who tells the rest of the giants what hap­pened. The rest of the giants depart the Iro­quois coun­try via Nia­gara Falls or the nar­row pas­sage and seek asy­lum into the Land Des­o­la­tion. The Land Des­o­la­tion as described in the Book of Mor­mon is where all the Jared­ites or giants are even­tu­al­ly killed leav­ing noth­ing but bones and their forts of pro­tec­tion. The geo­graph­i­cal loca­tions where this leg­end takes place is per­fect in this way. The land Des­o­la­tion being entered by the nar­row pas­sage. The place that these giants seek asy­lum is also the place the Jared­ite peo­ple are extin­guished by war against each oth­er, and in the end there is one lone sur­vivor, Coriantumr.

The depic­tions of the ston­ish giants is pic­tured below from Cusick’s book:

stonish

In the next sec­tion, I present the con­vinc­ing DNA con­nec­tion between the Hopewell Indi­ans and the Mid­dle East.

Series Nav­i­ga­tion: North Amer­i­can Book of Mor­mon Geog­ra­phy — David McK­aneTribe of Man­asseh — Native Amer­i­can DNA »

Posted

in

, ,

by

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

81 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Angela Moses
6 years ago

Hel­lo, My name is Angela. I am glad that some­one has put this site up. I am a con­vert to the church. The first time that the spir­it tes­ti­fied to me was when I was told the Book of Mor­mon was a his­to­ry of the Native Amer­i­cans here on this con­ti­nent and that Jesus Christ came to vis­it them. The moment I heard this I knew I was hear­ing truth and I knew the things that I felt were not coin­ci­dence and that The Sav­ior had not for­got­ten us and I knew he loved us and I knew what I had felt since I was a child was true. I am pale skinned and school­mates grow­ing up teased me when I said I was Indi­an, I learned more of my fam­i­ly tree and found that I was Native from many lines, Chero­kee, Shawnee, and Fox, and Wyan­dotte and more. I have always felt some­thing that I could­n’t explain as if there are times that I can hear an ener­gy from with­in but from God call­ing me to do some­thing. When I learned that Jesus vis­it­ed the native Amer­i­cans on this Con­ti­nent I knew the Gospel was true instant­ly because I could hear that call, as if I were being called home. and when I learned about Joseph Smith I did not trust him instant­ly in fact I was afraid but since I knew that the book of mor­mon was true and I knew that if I asked God He would answer me.… Read more »

komponist53
8 years ago

This will be my last post on this site and I’m sure that will please the LDS crowd. As soon as I fin­ish I will unsub­scribe. My inter­est in the LDS began in the late 1960s when a cou­ple mis­sion­ar­ies came to my house to spread the word. After two vis­its, I polite­ly told them that I did­n’t wish to con­tin­ue because the pre­sen­ta­tion did­n’t grab me. I remem­ber read­ing the so-called “promise of Moroni” (as mis­sion­ar­ies are apt to mark it up in Book of Mor­mon free copies), and thought it to be a rather vague and weak state­ment, not an espe­cial­ly good verse for recruit­ing new believ­ers. So a few days passed and I received a call from the LDS church office, as they want­ed to set up a bap­tism date for me. A lit­tle out­raged (because I gave no indi­ca­tion of want­i­ng to join), I hung up on the caller. Soon there­after, the two mis­sion­ar­ies where seen back at my house, knock­ing at the door. I very qui­et­ly slith­ered away into the back room and ignored the knock­ing as best as I could. They stood out there for at least 10 min­utes knock­ing, and said a cou­ple times loud­ly, “We know you’re in there.” I’ve told this sto­ry to a num­ber of Mor­mons through the years and have been told that mis­sion­ar­ies used a more aggres­sive method back in the 60s and 70s. Based on this ear­ly encounter, I began read­ing the Book of Mor­mon, Doc­trines & Covenants,… Read more »

komponist53
8 years ago

to David McKane
The buf­fa­lo dodge is an attempt to change the sub­ject. Obvi­ous­ly buf­fa­lo were killed and there’s plen­ty of proof of it, not just because of skele­tal remains but because we have reports from many sources; Indi­ans, gov­ern­ment offi­cials, bystanders, news­pa­pers, landown­ers, etc. etc. The 600 mil­lion fig­ure might be hyped a bit, how­ev­er. Every major civ­i­liza­tion has left a great deal of phys­i­cal evi­dence to sift through. Only an imag­i­nary civ­i­liza­tion can get by with­out leav­ing traces of any major struc­tures, edi­fices, etc. In my col­lec­tion of books on mound builders in Illi­nois, (pub­lished by Illi­nois Uni­ver­si­ty Press) the most impres­sive struc­tures I’ve seen are cat­tle stock­ades and some mean­der­ing trench­es. The U.S. was nev­er home to amaz­ing struc­tures like those found in ancient Turkey, Iran, Greece, Rome or Egypt. Are you sug­gest­ing they’re here, but we just haven’t dug it up yet?

komponist53
8 years ago

Bor­row­ing mod­ern research of oth­ers, then try­ing to make it look like an “ancient” book record­ed these things long ago is a tech­nique used by cer­tain nov­el­ists like Philip K. Dick. “Cryp­toscat­ol­ogy” is a style of writ­ing not too unlike his­tor­i­cal fic­tion that bases the sto­ry on known facts and urban leg­ends and injects a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry that’s half way plau­si­ble. I see the BoM in a sim­i­lar light. For instance, every­one in J. Smith’s time knew some­thing about the pres­ence of ancient Indi­ans in the area, but their basic igno­rance of specifics fueled wild spec­u­la­tion, includ­ing the idea that the Amer­i­can Indi­ans were of the lost tribe of Israel. And pri­or to Smith’s inter­est in such things, there were a num­ber of pop­u­lar books in cir­cu­la­tion pro­mot­ing the idea that ancient Israelites once flour­ished in North Amer­i­ca. The basic dif­fer­ence between these pre BoM writ­ings and the BoM is the attempt to make the BoM appear like an ancient rel­ic as it invokes King James ver­biage. I could go on. Let me pick apart one item here, the Ade­na cul­ture, as I see no obvi­ous BoM “match.” First of all, I beg to dif­fer with your descrip­tion of mound builders being “high­ly sophis­ti­cat­ed.” There is ample proof that many of these peo­ple prac­ticed human sac­ri­fice and can­ni­bal­ism. With the Ade­na folk, their sphere of influ­ence did­n’t rise to the lev­el of “civ­i­liza­tion” as you infer. Fur­ther­more, the clay tablets you refer con­tain no cuneiform inscrip­tions sug­gest­ing any­thing that looks… Read more »

komponist53
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

I don’t think Smith got a sin­gle thing right and the claims the Book of Mor­mon makes are not espe­cial­ly unique for its time. The Book of Mor­mon does­n’t account for more than two groups that migrat­ed to the U.S., but we know, for exam­ple, that ancient Chi­nese set­tle­ments have been found in New Mex­i­co and Ari­zona approx. 3,300 years ago. In addi­tion, 1,000 year-old Viking relics have been dis­cov­ered in Flori­da. These find­ings have been well-doc­u­ment­ed, but Book of Mor­mon claims leave us stymied because it leaves a great deal to the imag­i­na­tion. Take Cumorah Hill for exam­ple. The BoM men­tions a great bat­tle there that result­ed in many thou­sands killed. There is no trace of any such strug­gle in the region. The BoM alludes to great ancient civ­i­liza­tions in north Amer­i­ca, but why is there no trace of them? I describe a “great” civ­i­liza­tion as one like Greece, Rome, Turkey or Mesopotamia that made sig­nif­i­cant advances in build­ing, lan­guage, the arts and cul­ture. In the U.S., we have noth­ing equiv­a­lent to those great cul­tures. The mound builders of the U.S. were a prim­i­tive “civ­i­liza­tion” at best. Last­ly, if the BoM was par­tial­ly intend­ed for the Amer­i­can Indi­ans, Mor­mons would have to admit fail­ure because it was­n’t accept­ed in large num­bers, and still isn’t. Obvi­ous­ly, Native Amer­i­cans had dif­fi­cul­ty iden­ti­fy­ing with the BoM because it’s from a dif­fer­ent cul­tur­al ref­er­ence point.

komponist53
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Your idea of what con­sti­tutes a “mass bur­ial pit” must be very dif­fer­ent from mine. Also, if a quar­ter of a mil­lion “Nephites” were killed at Cumorah Hill, and “untold num­ber” of “Laman­ites” were killed there also, it’s only log­i­cal to con­clude that we should be able to find a great many skele­tal remains, but it’s not there. Sure, the mound builders buried their peo­ple there, but we have not come across any­thing approach­ing the mag­ni­tude sug­gest­ed by the BoM account. Now, it’s fine to quote native leg­ends, but don’t assume they’re all true or that they all got their oral his­to­ry right. Do you know any Native Amer­i­can cre­ation sto­ries? If not, read a few of them and tell me if you can believe in every­thing you read. All the sources you refer to here are cir­ca 1840’s, before arche­ol­o­gy was an estab­lished sci­ence. When we use terms like “mass buri­als,” it means hun­dreds if not thou­sands of bod­ies. Yes, we’ve come across skele­tal remains in all the places you men­tion, but we don’t find any evi­dence of a great con­fla­gra­tion, no holo­caust, no mass buri­als of any great size. These pio­neer ref­er­ences you quote are approach­ing 200 years. If you were a dili­gent stu­dent of his­to­ry, you would have tried to include some con­tem­po­rary research on these alleged find­ings to ascer­tain their val­ue. I don’t doubt we have some ancient bones lay­ing around. I just don’t see any con­vinc­ing evi­dence of mass killings/burials on any large scale.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Ferd
8 years ago

Hi David McKane,

The fer­til­iz­er indus­try pret­ty well cleaned up the bison bones and pro­vid­ed income to home­stead­ers and farm­ers who gath­ered them by wag­on loads.
http://​west​ern​farm​press​.com/​b​l​o​g​/​b​u​f​f​a​l​o​-​b​o​n​e​-​f​e​r​t​i​l​i​z​e​r​-​f​o​r​g​o​t​t​e​n​-​d​a​y​s​-​a​g​r​i​c​ulture

Yonah unega
Yonah unega
Reply to  Ferd
6 years ago

Dear Ferd Have you ever at seen the extent of the Cahokia Mounds they esti­mate over a mil­lion peo­ple lived in the sur­round­ing envi­rons I’ve been to the Etowah Mounds in Geor­gia near Atlanta and on top of the biggest Mound you can see the city of Atlanta which is miles away that com­plex is one of the small ones farm­ers and whites have con­sis­tent­ly and per­sis­tent­ly destroyed and erased evi­dence of the great civ­i­liza­tions that exist­ed in Amer­i­ca pre Colum­bus and we’re just now start­ing to real­ize that they were much more tech­no­log­i­cal­ly advanced than we gave them cred­it for you sound like some­one that espous­es man­i­fest des­tiny. Man­i­fest Des­tiny is what destroyed the evi­dence of great native civ­i­liza­tions in North Amer­i­ca. I am a proud Chero­kee and we have a great oral tra­di­tion that goes back many hun­dreds of years I’ve walked Fort Moun­tain Geor­gia where there are stone for­ti­fi­ca­tions that there is no expla­na­tion for we also have a leg­end of the Nune­he which talks about the moon eyed peo­ple a light skin light haired peo­ple look at SCHELIEMAN! Troy was just a leg­end but he found it any did it weigh before mod­ern archae­ol­o­gy was found­ed I think all that we’re ask­ing that you do is keep an open mind schlie­mann did and he found Troy! every Leg­end so far has been proved to have some bit of Truth in it and some as we found out or all truth and besides the sci­ence of the… Read more »

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

” It explains what farm­ers must have done when they found the piles of human bones and bone pits found on their farm­lands. They used it as fertilizer.”

No David, what it demon­strates is that the dis­ap­pear­ance of the bison bones is well doc­u­ment­ed and account­ed for. The dis­ap­pear­ance of those bones can­not be used in an argu­ment to claim that Book of Mor­mon bat­tle vic­tims’ bones like­wise dis­ap­peared. There was no indus­try or machin­ery used to grind “piles of human bones” into fer­til­iz­er. The quan­ti­ty of human bones found on farm­lands is in no way com­pa­ra­ble to the bison bones. And the quan­ti­ty of human remains and the evi­dence on those bones of injuries caus­ing death do not sup­port the Book of Mor­mon’s claims of mil­lions being killed in battle.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  tapirrider
8 years ago

There is absolute­ly no evi­dence that human bones were col­lect­ed by the agri­cul­tur­al indus­try to be ground up and used for fer­til­iz­er by ear­ly farm­ers and set­tlers. There is absolute­ly no evi­dence that a quan­ti­ty of human bones was found in the Unit­ed States on a mag­ni­tude even com­pa­ra­ble to the num­bers of bison bones, deposit­ed in a short inter­val of time com­pa­ra­ble to the slaugh­ter of the bison. And there is absolute­ly no evi­dence in the archae­ol­o­gy of human remains in pre-con­tact Unit­ed States of war deaths on a scale described in the Book of Mor­mon. So I can’t dis­agree with you on “how the evi­dence presents itself” because that evi­dence just isn’t even there.

Yonah unega
Yonah unega
Reply to  Ferd
6 years ago

These peo­ple? Racist

Dave
8 years ago

Why is it that If some ancient objects look fraud­u­lent then all objects are con­cidered fraud­u­lent.. I con­sid­er that fraud it self to clas­si­fy objects as fraud with­out inves­ti­gat­ing all thou­sands of Michi­gan tablets. David A Deal was able to deci­pher one tablet cal­en­dar with a date of 352AD based on astro­nom­i­cal events on the tablet and NASA. Is that not evi­dence? So the Michi­gan tablets can’t all be fraud if some evi­dence is for. By the way they are not the only tablets and writ­ing found in amer­i­ca. Los Lunas stone, bur­rows cave, and oth­er found in Indi­ana and Ohio.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave
8 years ago

David, the fact is that the Michi­gan rel­ic you believe to be from Boun­ti­ful, depict­ing a per­son on a cross, is a ver­i­fied hoax arti­fact. Even the LDS church does not con­sid­er it legit­i­mate. Why is it when I am dis­cussing a spe­cif­ic known fraud­u­lent arti­fact you keep try­ing to bring up oth­er objects? Lets stick to that one Michi­gan rel­ic, that one depict­ing a per­son on a cross.

Wes T
Admin
Reply to  Dave
8 years ago

Dave, do you have a book or web­site ref­er­ence that explains the evi­dence about this tablet cal­en­dar you mention?

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave
8 years ago

This com­ment is for the Dave who post­ed July 8, 2016 at 11:43 pm. which I now under­stand is not David McKane. ” David A Deal was able to deci­pher one tablet cal­en­dar with a date of 352AD based on astro­nom­i­cal events on the tablet and NASA. Is that not evi­dence? ” No, it is not evi­dence. David Allen Deal did not deci­pher any­thing, he made an imag­i­na­tive attempt and his claim was not valid, nor sup­port­ed by any cred­i­ble schol­ars. David Allen Deal was not an archae­ol­o­gist nor a lin­guist. He also wrote a book claim­ing that Noah’s ark had been found, and that find was com­plete­ly debunked by scholars. For mem­bers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat­ter-day Saints, the best evi­dence that the Michi­gan relics are not authen­tic is the fact that the church had own­er­ship of 797 of these hoax objects from 1974 until 2003, when they were giv­en to the Michi­gan His­tor­i­cal Muse­um. One of those giv­en away by the church was the tablet depict­ing a per­son on a cross. You can see a pho­to of that rel­ic in this link, the pho­to tak­en by David Allen Deal when the tablet was in the church archives. http://​www​.ensign​mes​sage​.com/​c​h​r​i​s​t​i​n​u​s​a.html This fact cre­ates many dif­fi­cul­ties for those mem­bers who want the Michi­gan relics to be real. Why would the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat­ter-day Saints have such a pro­found piece of evi­dence as that tablet depict­ing the cru­ci­fix­ion and then just give it away to a muse­um that… Read more »

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Seems they have put too much into try­ing to make the Book of Mor­mon fit with 21st cen­tu­ry knowl­edge but end­ed up paint­ing them­selves into a cor­ner. They had to dis­count and dis­re­gard Joseph Smith’s own words and twist the writ­ings in the Book of Mor­mon into some­thing they don’t say. They went against the cau­tions that Joseph Field­ing Smith gave about two Cumorahs and have end­ed up caus­ing a divi­sion in the mem­ber­ship of the church over some­thing as sim­ple as where the sto­ries were sup­posed to have happened.

It real­ly should just be on faith. Like I said, Moroni’s promise should be enough. In my youth the apos­tles and prophets pro­mot­ed a hemi­spher­ic mod­el, where the major events hap­pened in the region of the Unit­ed States but all indige­nous peo­ples of the Amer­i­c­as were from Book of Mor­mon peo­ples. Now it isn’t even the same church.

So like I said, I can meet you half way with the sto­ries intend­ed to have been in regions of the Unit­ed States, even though I no longer believe them. I just get dis­ap­point­ed when known hoax­es are used to try to prop things up.

komponist53
Reply to  tapirrider
8 years ago

To me, faith and rea­son should be able to come togeth­er to form a body of truth and infor­ma­tion that is edi­fy­ing on intel­lec­tu­al and spir­i­tu­al lev­els. I know of cer­tain books that pro­vide that to me in great mea­sure, but the Book of Mor­mon (as far as I’m con­cerned) has­n’t come any­where close to sup­ply­ing me with the sat­is­fac­tion of know­ing that what I’m read­ing is sol­id on all fronts. So when some­one talks about hav­ing faith in some­thing like the Book of Rev­e­la­tion or a “promise of Moroni,” I am skep­ti­cal. First, the Book of Rev­e­la­tion has been rein­ter­pret­ed hun­dreds of times to fit a mul­ti­tude of sit­u­a­tions, and a “promise” from an “angel” from a book that’s loaded with errors does­n’t (to me) deserve my faith, a faith built in part on rea­son and research I can lay my hands on. Fur­ther­more, I don’t think the premise of this blog is being espe­cial­ly hon­est, where Mr. McK­ane says that he’s not inter­est­ed in defend­ing the Book of Mor­mon, but is here to bol­ster the books’ view­point on con­tro­ver­sial migra­tion issues that only Mor­mons believe. Mor­mon “schol­ar­ship” as best as I can tell, depends large­ly on dig­ging up long out-of-date and dis­card­ed ideas, recy­cling and repack­ag­ing them. But all this does is build on con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry which is nei­ther hon­est or scientific.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Those things get thrown out for good rea­son. The accept­ed posi­tion of schol­ars is based on evi­dence and facts. Hoax arti­facts aren’t con­sid­ered hoax­es sim­ply because they are con­trary to the posi­tion of schol­ars, they are deter­mined to be hoax­es based on evi­dence. In the case of the Michi­gan relics, the evi­dence is over­whelm­ing that they are hoax­es. Same with the Bur­roughs cave, Los Lunas Deca­logue, Newark Deca­logue, etc.The main­stream con­sen­sus of schol­ars can change, but it takes con­sid­er­able evi­dence that is cred­i­ble. There is no cred­i­ble evi­dence for Hebrews in ancient Amer­i­ca. With­out that, the con­sen­sus can­not be changed.

My con­cern with Mor­monism and hoax arti­facts is that pre­sent­ing them as evi­dence mis­leads mem­bers and can actu­al­ly destroy faith when some­one who real­ly wants the truth begins study­ing from rep­utable and cred­i­ble jour­nals of sci­ence and learns that pseu­do-archae­ol­o­gy is filled with hoax­es. Moroni’s promise should be enough. Noth­ing is real­ly gained in the long term by prop­ping up as evi­dence objects that are not real.

David McK­ane, you and I do share some things in com­mon. Your posi­tion that the Book of Mor­mon sto­ries hap­pened in regions of the Unit­ed States and not Mesoamer­i­ca is some­thing that I can meet you half-way on. Even though I no longer believe the Book of Mor­mon and have left the church, I do main­tain that Joseph Smith intend­ed it to be about the Amer­i­can Indi­ans in the Unit­ed States.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

David, there is no need at all to use any known hoax arti­facts. This has noth­ing to do with white­wash­ing all of the authen­tic arti­facts. None of those pro­vide any sup­port for claims of ancient Hebrews in the Amer­i­c­as. See­ing them for what they real­ly are offers no evi­dence for the Book of Mor­mon. For LDS mem­bers, there should be no need for any pseudoar­chae­ol­o­gy or claims that chal­lenge the con­sen­sus of sci­ence. But what I have seen with some LDS mem­bers are claims of con­spir­a­cies by sci­en­tists to hide evi­dence and claims of evi­dence that do not hold up. Wayne May’s use of the Michi­gan relics as well as many oth­er unre­li­able claims made by him and oth­ers are noth­ing but garbage. The Book of Mor­mon should stand on its own, Moroni’s promise should be enough. But there are mem­bers who present trash to offer in sup­port of it. Some have even inten­tion­al­ly and dis­hon­est­ly mis­rep­re­sent­ed sci­en­tists. These things can in fact can be harm­ful to indi­vid­ual LDS mem­bers who are search­ing for truth. It is a bit­ter pill to swal­low when one wants to believe what oth­ers offer in sup­port of evi­dence, only to find it is based on lies and known hoax­es. And what does the oth­er side of the geog­ra­phy debate have to offer? Mesoamer­i­ca? That requires dis­re­gard­ing Joseph Smith’s own words, even re-inter­pret­ing state­ments about Laman­ites in the Doc­trine and Covenants. It also requires admit­ting that Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence teach­ings from the apos­tles Mark E. Peter­son… Read more »

Timmy
Timmy
Reply to  tapirrider
7 years ago

um…not a Mor­mon but would like to point out that A: LDS church did­n’t own the Michi­gan tablets a pri­vate fam­i­ly did and does. The LED church and the own­ing fam­i­ly were told that they were go in to be researched by their top researchers and experts so they nat­u­ral­ly agreed. Obviosly they were bam­bu­zo­oled by an arche­ol­o­gy department.…not a shock or sur­prise. Hall break into the 4th bas­ment of the Smith­son­ian and you’ll see mil­lions of arti­facts they conned peo­ple out of to keep under the wraps of main stream brain­wash­ing. B: the only rea­son the Michi­gan tablets were and are con­sid­ered hoax­es by main­stream dog­mat­ic is the met­al tools that were used to make them. well met­al tools have been found coast to coast and bor­der to bor­der. Mohawks had steel bows when we showed up…the colonists not­ed that their bows shot arrows fur­ther and fast­we than their muz­zle load­ers. I would also like to point out to the gen­tle­man that con­tin­ues to state that there was no advanced civ­i­liza­tion in north Amer­i­ca pri­or to the Euro­peans… that is insain­ly igno­rant. Just your munk mound is a 2 full acres larg­er in base than the Giza Pyra­mid. Sur­pant mount need more death moved than Pharos Canal.…ancient Suez.…. well and speak­ing of canals obvi­ous­ly you’ve researched the Ortone park canal sys­tem in Flori­da. Or the Grand Terre island canal sys­tem or the Hohokum Rover Canal sys­tem in the Phoenix area. I’m asum­ing our friend is not Amer­i­can , we… Read more »

komponist53
8 years ago

For many years, I’ve stud­ied the ori­gins of the Book of Mor­mon. The method by which it was received con­tin­ues to look extreme­ly flim­sy in my opin­ion. Being a descen­dant of Luman Wal­ters, I’ve read his notes that strong­ly sug­gest that the Smith’s were just good at mak­ing things up. I could go on.

Heber Frank
8 years ago

Hi. Your mod­el requires the fresh water great lakes to be seas. Seas are not fresh water. If every word in the Book of Mor­mon can be rede­fined to some­thing else, then we could eas­i­ly have a mod­el on the moon. The only mod­el I know of that does not con­tin­u­al­ly rede­fine words is the South Amer­i­can mod­el where the Ama­zon basin was under­wa­ter before Christ. Here is the best cur­rent blog on it: http://​neph​icode​.blogspot​.com/

komponist53
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

You are imply­ing that the ancient mind could­n’t tell the dif­fer­ence between a large body of fresh water like a lake and a saline sea. For this to be true, you’d have to pro­vide doc­u­men­ta­tion. Like for instance, wher­ev­er a body of water is men­tioned in the Bible (Sea of Galilee, Great Sea, Waters of Merom, etc, etc), did the author err in describ­ing it as a salt or fresh water body?

komponist53
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

O.k., fine, but you did seem to imply that they did­n’t know the dif­fer­ence in an ear­li­er post.

Dave
8 years ago

I like the arti­cle and sug­gest any­one who want lean more about the native peo­ple to read their books. A good one is “To the Amer­i­can Indi­an: Rem­i­nis­cences of Yurkok Woman” She talks about the wa-gas peo­ple that lived in North­ern Cal­i­for­nia on the Kalamith Riv­er before the Native Amer­i­cans arrived. She said these ancient white peo­ple had inhab­it­ed the whole con­tent­ment and where friend­ly and nice peo­ple but left some­where up north. And let’s not for­get the Chero­kee who’s oral his­to­ry has them com­ing from Israel (https://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​d​M​T​0​M​ePKRf8). The prob­lem I have with the cur­rent the­o­ries of the mound builders is when you read the old books they talk about the Hopewell and Ade­na as a very sophis­ti­cat­ed cul­ture Which is dif­fer­ent than the cur­rent belief that they were hunter gath­ers. In the book Pre­his­toric Men of Ken­tucky by Col. Ben­net A. Young he give account the Shawnee Indi­an war on exter­mi­na­tion of the white mound builders that these peo­ple had a sophis­ti­ca­tion not known to Indi­ans. See below: Col. James Moore, of Ken­tucky, was told by an old Indi­an that the prim­i­tive inhab­i­tants of this state had per­ished in a war of exter­mi­na­tion waged against them by the Indi­ans; that the last great bat­tle was fought at the Falls of the Ohio, (Clarksville Indi­ana); and that the Indi­ans suc­ceed­ed in dri­ving the abo­rig­ines into a small island below the rapids, ‘where the whole of them were cut to pieces’. The colonel was assured that the evi­dence of this event rest­ed… Read more »

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave
8 years ago

Rafinesque com­mit­ted fraud, his work is now a known hoax.
http://​archive​.archae​ol​o​gy​.org/​o​n​l​i​n​e​/​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​s​/​h​o​a​x​e​s​/​w​a​l​a​m​_​o​l​u​m.html

The Michi­gan relics like­wise are a known hoax. The LDS church com­mis­sioned a study of them and deter­mined they were not real. LDS Apos­tle James Tal­mage announced that they were a hoax. This deter­mi­na­tion still holds today.

David, please be careful.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

No, it isn’t out of place. You said “So did the mound builder art or degree of sophis­ti­ca­tion include met­al­lur­gy, sun dial, cal­en­dars, and star charts? All the item found that where con­sid­ered fraud­u­lent arti­facts by most schol­ars (search Michi­gan arti­facts). Was this sophis­ti­ca­tion just bows and arrows?”

Instead of just men­tion­ing that most schol­ars con­sid­ered the Michi­gan relics fraud­u­lent, you might con­sid­er point­ing out that the LDS church found them to be fake and has not changed its posi­tion on that.

You also said “(and Ten­nessee also is asso­ci­at­ed with Ken­tucky in pre­his­toric ethnog­ra­phy by Rafinesque)”. Rafinesque’s work was a fake too.

Dave, please be care­ful with using known hoax­es in try­ing to make your points.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Dave, my points are about the Michi­gan relics and Con­stan­tine Rafinesque’s fraud­u­lent work and your ref­er­ence to these things while dis­cussing the Hopewell cul­ture and the Book of Mormon.

The ‘Michi­gan Relics’: A Sto­ry of Forgery and Decep­tion by Apos­tle James E. Tal­mage in the Octo­ber 1911 Improve­ment Era Magazine
https://​archive​.org/​s​t​r​e​a​m​/​i​m​p​r​o​v​e​m​e​n​t​e​r​a​1​4​0​1​2​u​n​s​e​#​p​a​g​e​/​n​7​/​m​o​de/2up

Tools Leave Marks: Mate­r­i­al Analy­sis of the Scot­ford-Sop­er-Sav­age Michi­gan Relics by Richard B. Stamps
https://​ojs​.lib​.byu​.edu/​s​p​c​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​/​B​Y​U​S​t​u​d​i​e​s​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​v​i​e​w​F​i​l​e​/​6​8​0​1/6450

New light shone on ‘old relics’ by Dr. Bradley T. Lepper
http://​www​.dis​patch​.com/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​s​t​o​r​i​e​s​/​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​7​/​1​2​/​l​i​g​h​t.html

The fact that these objects are frauds does not under­mine the authen­tic­i­ty of real Hopewell arti­facts and cul­ture, nor does it threat­en the Book of Mor­mon. But attempts by some LDS mem­bers to sug­gest that the Michi­gan relics and/or Rafinesque’s fraud­u­lent work are authen­tic mis­leads away from truth.

Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Dave, I am talk­ing about your false and mis­lead­ing state­ments con­cern­ing the Michi­gan arti­facts and Con­stan­tine Rafinesque’s fraud­u­lent work.

You stat­ed “16 rune­stones found in North Amer­i­ca are gen­er­al­ly believed to be fake. These rune­stones have what appears to be Hebrew, Phoeni­cian, and Greek-like char­ac­ters. These are the Bat Creek Stone, AVM Rune­stone, Bourne stone, Grave Creek Stone, Heav­en­er Rune­stone, Kens­ing­ton Rune­stone, Nar­ra­gansett Rune­stone, Okla­homa rune­stones, Poteau Rune­stone, Spir­it Pond rune­stones, Vérendrye Rune­stone, Shawnee Rune­stone, Ohio Key stone, Ohio Deca­logue stone, The Jon­son Brad­ner stone, and the Michi­gan Tablets. The gen­er­al­ly-accept­ed, but unfound­ed the­o­ry behind these rune­stones is that 19th and 20th cen­tu­ry farm­ers and cit­i­zens had an insa­tiable desire to make fake Indi­an paleo Hebrew, Greek and Phoeni­cian like arti­facts and had the abil­i­ty to do so. Nei­ther of those asser­tions are sup­port­ed by facts.”

That state­ment is in error because the facts do sup­port the con­clu­sion that the Michi­gan arti­facts were faked and that those who did it had the abil­i­ty to do so.

You need to be care­ful in what you claim is real.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Elder James E. Tal­mage was a rare apos­tle of the LDS church. One of his pub­lished works (he was a co-author) was while he was an apos­tle. It was in a non-LDS, peer reviewed, aca­d­e­m­ic jour­nal and was on the sub­ject of the Michi­gan relics. It is well worth reading. The Michi­gan Archae­o­log­i­cal Ques­tion Set­tled, by Fred­er­ick Starr, J.O. Kin­na­man, and James E. Tal­mage, pub­lished in The Amer­i­can Anti­quar­i­an and Ori­en­tal Jour­nal 33, no. 3, 1911 https://​books​.google​.com/​b​o​o​k​s​?​i​d​=​B​8​o​a​A​A​A​A​Y​A​A​J​&​p​g​=​P​A​1​6​0​&​l​p​g​=​P​A​1​6​0​&​d​q​#​v​=​o​n​e​p​a​g​e​&​q​&​f​=false You might want to con­sid­er that the Michi­gan relics do not num­ber over 10,000 arti­facts, the true count is some­where around 3,000. Also, the so-called “16 rune­stones” you wrote about have all been like­wise found to be hoax­es. And your claim of “3/4 of a bil­lion pounds of cop­per were mined by pre­his­toric native Amer­i­cans” is also an error that comes from pseudoar­chae­ol­o­gy sources. The State of Our Knowl­edge About Ancient Cop­per Min­ing in Michigan The Michi­gan Archae­ol­o­gist 41(2–3):119–138. Susan R. Mar­tin 1995 http://​www​.ram​tops​.co​.uk/​c​o​p​p​e​r.html I stand by my posi­tion that hoax arti­facts were quite com­mon in the 19th cen­tu­ry, far more com­mon than you seem to grasp. The actu­al archae­o­log­i­cal evi­dence of the Hopewell cul­ture has noth­ing to do with ancient Hebrews in Amer­i­ca. Instead, it has every­thing to do with a most incred­i­ble peo­ple who devel­oped in their own ways with their own cul­tures, iso­lat­ed from the Old World cul­tures and tech­nolo­gies. They even accom­plish­ing an inde­pen­dent domes­ti­ca­tion of plants, one of only a hand­ful through­out the world, which formed an agri­cul­tur­al base that did… Read more »

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Dave, if your esti­mate of over 9000 relics is in ref­er­ence to those with inscrip­tions sug­gest­ing ancient Hebrews were in the Amer­i­c­as, then your esti­mate is flat out wrong. The forg­eries known as the Scot­ford-Sop­er-Sav­age col­lec­tion, made by two peo­ple, does not and has nev­er had that many. At most, only about 3,000 hoax arti­facts were fab­ri­cat­ed by them. You said “The idea that two peo­ple would make over 10000 arti­facts and spread them all over Michi­gan I find ridicu­lous and that is just Michi­gan.” The facts are work­ing against you.

You said “This argu­ment has been point­less the point of my essay and research is not about the Michi­gan relics”

Dave, it is cru­cial to be accu­rate and use reli­able infor­ma­tion if you want your points to be believ­able. You are using known hoax arti­facts and mak­ing erro­neous claims about them. This is dam­ag­ing to your case and is not a point­less argu­ment, nor is it a waste of time..

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

Dave said:

The one I find the most inter­est­ing are the Michi­gan relics in the geog­ra­phy map Michi­gan is the land boun­ti­ful. It is also the city that Christ visited.
In the Michi­gan relics there is a depic­tion of a per­son on a cross. I think the the Michi­gan relics are arti­facts from the city of Bountiful.”
https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑1/#comment-72

Then you tell me “This argu­ment has been point­less the point of my essay and research is not about the Michi­gan relics”. It would be point­less if you were not men­tion­ing them and mak­ing claims about them. But you are the one using them in your essay and com­ments. It is not point­less and out of place to dis­cuss fraud­u­lent hoax arti­facts when they are pre­sent­ed as evi­dence for the Book of Mormon.

Archae­ol­o­gy’s great hoax
http://​www​.reli​gion​news​blog​.com/​4​8​4​1​/​a​r​c​h​a​e​o​l​o​g​y​s​-​g​r​e​a​t-hoax

Wes T
Admin
Reply to  tapirrider
8 years ago

To Tapir Rid­er’s point, Dave, if you don’t feel strong­ly that these Michi­gan relics are impor­tant to your mod­el, per­haps it makes sense to remove or strike them since they appear to be at least most­ly a proven hoax.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

David, I’m not talk­ing about pic­tures. I have clear­ly explained and shown with your own quotes what you have said about the Michi­gan relics. They are, in fact, hoax artifacts.

tapirrider
tapirrider
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

I am talk­ing about what you have said about the Michi­gan relics, not the pic­tures that YOU are refer­ring to. David, you said:

The one I find the most inter­est­ing are the Michi­gan relics in the geog­ra­phy map Michi­gan is the land boun­ti­ful. It is also the city that Christ visited.
In the Michi­gan relics there is a depic­tion of a per­son on a cross. I think the the Michi­gan relics are arti­facts from the city of Bountiful.”
https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑1/#comment-72

David, the Michi­gan relics are hoax arti­facts. The one with a depic­tion of a per­son on a cross is not from the Hopewell cul­ture. It is a forgery. You should rethink your posi­tion that the Michi­gan relics are arti­facts from the city of Boun­ti­ful. They are not. They are fraud­u­lent fab­ri­ca­tions and do not sup­port the Book of Mormon.

Joe S
Joe S
8 years ago

David.…Keep trust­ing the spir­it. Your doing it the right way. My wife and I just spent a full 12 hour day at a Book of Mor­mon Sym­po­sium with Rod Mel­drum, Bruce Porter, Ryan Fish­er, Wayne May and oth­ers. I love the tes­ti­mo­ny I have of the Book of Mor­mon Lands here in the Promised Land. Pret­ty much any mem­ber you ask who has a tes­ti­mo­ny of the Heart­land mod­el knew with­in min­utes this is the Promised Land, not MesoAmer­i­ca. I’ve only been active in the church a cou­ple years, I’m in my 50’s and grew up believ­ing MesoAmer­i­ca was where the Book of Mor­mon took place. I try to let mem­bers know who are try­ing to Google there way to the truth to remem­ber, the Heart­land mod­el here in 2016 has giv­en their rebut­tle and evi­dence to every­thing the old FARMS, who BYU fired in 2012, then became the Inter­preter and now call them­selves Book of Mor­mon Cen­tral has thrown at them. Beware of read­ing 9 out of 10 old lies and attacks on the Heart­land mod­el. Go to FIRMLDS​.ORG and Bookof­mor­monev­i­dence. com to find the Heart­land truth and what they present to dis­pell those lies. I’ll end it with just one of 1,000ss of side bits of truth. The first Bible in the Unit­ed States was trans­lat­ed in the Algo­nquian Native Amer­i­can lan­guage in 1663 and taught to the Algo­nquian speak­ing Tribes. Fast for­ward to the moment the Book of Mor­mon was hot off the press in the 1800’s, the… Read more »

Kevin Rex
8 years ago

This is how I would respond to your mod­el. The God of the Old Tes­ta­ment is a ridicu­lous God; why try to con­nect Native Amer­i­cans to Him? Why con­tin­ue to believe that God “cursed” Laman­ites with dark skin? That’s just plain bar­bar­ic and racist. Native Amer­i­cans on both con­ti­nents of North and South Amer­i­ca, have a rich his­to­ry WITHOUT being con­nect­ed to Israel and the nomadic myths and tales of the Old Tes­ta­ment. It just does­n’t make any log­i­cal sense to even try to con­nect them. So few peo­ple believe in the God of the Old Tes­ta­ment any more, any way, and Mor­monis­m’s attempts to try to con­nect Jesus and Jeho­vah and the Native Amer­i­cans is sil­ly. Think of it, God curs­ing peo­ple with dark skin? What kind of God is that?

Kevin Rex
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

David: I think you just cut and past­ed this reply from my lit­tle tid­bit on the LDS Church’s Indi­an Place­ment Pro­gram and the Bundy takeover in East­ern Ore­gon. It would be nice to have a real dis­cus­sion with you. Please see my reply in the oth­er post­ing, and remem­ber that the plain and sim­ple read­ing of the Book of Mor­mon as read by your for­mer prophets, was that the curse was dark skin and that by liv­ing right­eous­ly, like con­vert­ing to the gospel through the Indi­an Place­ment Pro­gram, the Native Amer­i­cans would become white and delight­some. See Spencer W. Kim­ball Octo­ber 1960 gen­er­al con­fer­ence address.

Sean H
Sean H
8 years ago

I’ve gone through this process before, although I don’t think I put as much thought into it. There is a rea­son why the Hopewell Tra­di­tion match­es up rea­son­ably well, except for the huge dis­par­i­ty on time frames. 

These are the remains that Joe was used to encoun­ter­ing and were the inspi­ra­tion for his book.

That’s it. No oth­er expla­na­tion needed.

Brent
Brent
8 years ago

You can’t start with the con­clu­sion that the BOM is true and then move all the pieces around to make it fit your pre­con­ceived con­clu­sion. That’s the oppo­site of science.

Candice
Candice
8 years ago

Just makes me sad you are so des­per­ate to prove a fic­ti­tious sto­ry. So much of life wast­ed on research­ing a fake storyline.

Marshall
Marshall
Reply to  Dave Mack
8 years ago

If it all comes down to faith, why did you cre­ate this doc­u­ment? Seems anti­thet­i­cal to seek proof of some­thing you believe requires faith to be real.

Yonah unega
Yonah unega
Reply to  Candice
6 years ago

How do you know it’s fake are you an archae­ol­o­gist are you an expert I think David’s got more expe­ri­ence than you do bring up some­thing valid instead of just attack­ing our faith I’m Native Amer­i­can and also a proud mem­ber of the LDS Church

Eric Nelson
8 years ago

How would you respond to this cri­tique of the Heart­land mod­el: http://​www​.bmaf​.org/​n​o​de/359

ldshistorythrowaway
ldshistorythrowaway
8 years ago

This is frankly some of the worst “his­to­ry” I have ever read. If you are going to make claims that there are iron swords, ele­phants, hors­es, and char­i­ots, you bet­ter pro­vide some seri­ous cita­tions. For instance, in response I could post this inter­view with a Yale pro­fes­sor on book of mor­mon arche­ol­o­gy. http://​mor​mon​sto​ries​.org/​m​i​c​h​a​e​l​-​c​o​e​-​a​n​-​o​u​t​s​i​d​e​r​s​-​v​i​e​w​-​o​f​-​b​o​o​k​-​o​f​-​m​o​r​m​o​n​-​a​r​c​h​a​e​ology/. Your friend would most like­ly claim that the sub­ject of that inter­view is mesoamer­i­ca and not North Amer­i­ca, but if you lis­ten to the inter­view that’s because the only even remote­ly “arguable” (I use this in the broad­est sense because the book of mor­mon is entire­ly made up) loca­tion for the book of mor­mon is mesoamerica.

curious_mormon
curious_mormon
8 years ago

The “rune­stones” you are refer­ring to are actu­al­ly these (https://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​N​e​w​a​r​k​_​H​o​l​y​_​Stones) and sim­i­lar hoax­es. I’m assum­ing you’ve inten­tion­al­ly chang­ing the words to make it hard­er to con­nect them to the source.

curious_mormon
curious_mormon
8 years ago

A cou­ple of big prob­lems with this.

Joseph Smith claims there were only two great migra­tions to the Amer­i­can continents.

Group 1: The Jared­ites. They depend on a lit­er­al tow­er of babel, and they need­ed to all die save two men, ful­fill­ing prophecy.

Group 2: The Lehites. They need­ed to show up around 600 BC, but the Hopewell exist­ed at least 100–200 years pri­or to that in Flori­da. To put this into per­spec­tive, that’s like claim­ing men land­ed on the moon around the time of the rev­o­lu­tion­ary war. It’s wrong.

Even the church essays admit there is no DNA con­nec­tion. The hopewell graves that were dug up do not match Jew­ish DNA that traces their lin­eage back to David. Instead, they’re linked to the chero­kee which goes back to near­ly 1800 BC.

And that’s just a start. We could also talk about the Tow­er of Babel, the lack of arti­facts specif­i­cal­ly stat­ed in the Book (since you now claim to know who they are, you’d expect to see 2000 year old wheels or Euro­pean swords — hint: you don’t). Lack of war­fare around hill cumorah, specif­i­cal­ly the destruc­tion of half the entire east­ern Unit­ed States gath­ered around a 2–3 mile radius. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

TL;DR: We get it. The Hopewell time­line almost match­es up with the Book of Mor­mon time­line (+/- a few hun­dred years). That does­n’t make this peo­ple the myth­i­cal Nephites, nor does it mean you can ignore every­thing else to push that conclusion.

Wes T
Admin
8 years ago

Are there any avail­able sci­en­tif­ic analy­ses of the runestones?

81
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x