Final Thoughts

I have spent the last two years gath­er­ing evi­dence for this doc­u­ment. It has been frus­trat­ing and exhil­a­rat­ing all at the same time. There are peo­ple I need to thank, includ­ing Wayne May and Rod Mel­drum. I also thank Wes Trexler for help­ing review and edit this material.

Some of the sources that I found were through crit­ics. They found help­ful infor­ma­tion dur­ing their attempts to dis­prove the Book of Mor­mon and to find sources of how Joseph Smith, Syd­ney Rig­don and Oliv­er Cow­ard­ly fab­ri­cat­ed the Book of Mor­mon. While dis­prov­ing the Mesoamer­i­can mod­el they were also pro­vid­ing evi­dence for the North Amer­i­can mod­el. Dis­count­ing the arti­facts, lan­guage, and cul­tur­al sim­i­lar­i­ties to the Hebrews will be hard­er in North Amer­i­ca than the Mesoamer­i­can mod­el. Unless I’m miss­ing some­thing impor­tant, crit­ics will have to say Joseph Smith could not have not done it by him­self; Joseph Smith, Oliv­er Cow­dery, Syd­ney Rig­don, and Mar­tin Har­ris all helped. They will have to say that they were expert arche­ol­o­gist on the Hopewell and Ade­na cul­tures. They knew they had met­al­lur­gy and woven cloth and breast plates etc. They had an intu­itive knowl­edge of the Hopewell time­line and geog­ra­phy. They were also experts on Native Amer­i­can cul­ture, their lan­guage, and beliefs from the Gulf of Mex­i­co and to the Great Lakes. They were experts on old world civ­i­liza­tions espe­cial­ly the Assyr­i­an cul­ture, their arti­facts, and writ­ing sys­tem and the 12 tribes of Israel as well as the Old tes­ta­ment. But most impor­tant­ly they also had innate knowl­edge of DNA and its dis­tri­b­u­tion. Some­how they knew the Druze of Israel and the Great Lake Indi­ans shared the same DNA. If my geog­ra­phy mod­el can be shown to be con­sis­tent through­out the Book of Mor­mon, they also would have known that what sounds like four seas is actu­al­ly six and the nar­row neck and nar­row pas­sage are two fea­tures not one, but they con­gru­ent­ly decid­ed not to tell any­body these cru­cial bits of information.

Cher­ry Pick­ing Data

One will notice that the dates giv­en pre-4000BC match up with Book of Mor­mon. The Prob­lem lies with dates beyond 4000BC. The dates that deal with DNA, North Amer­i­can land mam­mals and the pop­u­lat­ing of North and South Amer­i­ca don’t line up. How is it that I use dates that are in line with Book of Mor­mon and dates that are not in line with the Book of Mor­mon are ignored? The best answer for believ­ers is that I do not believe that human life as we know it exist­ed beyond 4000BC years. Although I do believe that the earth is bil­lions of years old, I believe that human life began with Adam and Eve and not evo­lu­tion. So dat­ing past 4000BC is irrel­e­vant. This is not a sci­en­tif­ic research paper done by a pro­fes­sion­al that I’m sure every­one has noticed. I have faith that radio car­bon dat­ing past 4000BC years is wrong — how I’m going to prove that some­day I don’t know but at this point it does not matter.

Data Sources


The Pres­ence of Mito­chon­dr­i­al hap­logroup X in Alta­ians from South Siberia

Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:237–241, 2001


MtD­NA hap­logroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America

Michael D. Brown,1 Seyed H. Hosseini,1 Anto­nio Torroni,2 Hans-Ju¨rgenBandelt,3 Jon C. Allen,1 Theodore G. Schurr,1 Rosaria Scozzari,2 Ful­vio Cruciani,2 and Dou­glas C. Wallace1




Great Surprise”—Native Amer­i­cans Have West Eurasian Origins


Ori­gin and Dif­fu­sion of mtD­NA hap­logroup X



The Dover Mound by William S Webb and Charles Snow

(In Mohawk Coun­try: Ear­ly Nar­ra­tives about a Native People

By Dean R. Snow, Charles T. Gehring, William A. Starna)



The Ade­na People

By William S. Webb, Charles E. Snow, James B. Griffin

The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neigh­bors: Bioar­chae­o­log­i­cal Doc­u­men­ta­tion and Cul­tur­al Understanding

By Daniel Troy Case, Christo­pher Carr


Mounds for the Dead, by Don Dragoo‑brief/2013/11/20/ancient-siberian-genome-sheds-light-on-native-american-origins/


First Amer­i­cans arrived as 2 sep­a­rate migra­tions, accord­ing to new genet­ic evidence


Twelve Mil­len­nia: Archae­ol­o­gy of the Upper Mis­sis­sip­pi Riv­er Valley

By James L Thel­er and Robert F Boszhardt



A Most Indis­pens­able Art: Native Fiber Indus­tries from East­ern North America

By James B. Petersen

Writ­ings of Caleb Atwater


New Rela­tions of Gaspe­sia by Father Chret­ian Le Clercq


Views of Louisiana by Hen­ry M. Brackenridge


The Nat­ur­al and Abo­rig­i­nal His­to­ry of Ten­nessee by John Haywood


Ancient His­to­ry of the six Nations by David Cusick


A Star in the West by Elias Boudinot


Myths of the Chero­kees by James Mooney


New Views of the Ori­gins of the Tribe and Nations of Amer­i­ca by Ben­jamin Barton


Life of Joseph Brant-Thayen­da­negea: by William Stone


On the Abo­rig­ines of the West­ern Coun­tries by M.H. Frost,+when+at+St.+Louis+in+1800,&source=bl&ots=1‑KX4HYPRl&sig=iElRCy9Yhq90k9Xp5dxQYcnUHag&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q1LzVIzfFaz7sAT0j4GADw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Colonel%20Josephe h%20Daviess%2C%20when%20at%20St.%20Louis%20in%201800%2C&f=false

The His­to­ry of the Amer­i­can Indi­ans; by James Adair,+27th+July,+1759,+per+Will,+Bolsover.&source=bl&ots=nRatig0Y0i&sig=sseXSfllLloQxSGHLIinwf0D2_8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=El3zVIHXLrWBsQS0m4KIDQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Tuccabatchey-square%2C%2027th%20July%2C%201759%2C%20per%20Will%2C%20Bolsover.&f=false

Leg­ends of the Mic­mac by Silas T Rand


The Coro­n­a­do expedition


Voy­age to Car­oli­na by John Lawson


Prob­lems of the Ohio Mounds by Cyrus Thomas


The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio< Vol­ume 6, Issue 5 by War­ren King Moorehead


His­to­ry, man­ners, and cus­toms of the Indi­an nations who once inhab­it­ed Penn­syl­va­nia and the neigh­bor­ing states By John Heckewelder


The Ten­nessee Mound Builders by Joseph Jones


Foot-prints of van­ished races in the Mis­sis­sip­pi val­ley by Alban Conant




The Iowa by William Har­vey Miner‑h/39952‑h.htm

Abo­rig­i­nal mon­u­ments of the state of New-York. Com­pris­ing the results of orig­i­nal sur­veys and explo­rations by E.G. Squier


The Mound Builders Their Work and Relics by Rev Stephen D Peet PhD


Link is for Greek lan­guage Book of Mor­mon ties



Series Nav­i­ga­tion: North Amer­i­can Book of Mor­mon Geog­ra­phy — David McK­ane« Tribe of Man­asseh — Geog­ra­phy Map and Sup­port­ing Verses
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Trent Bohl
March 17, 2020 7:46 pm

I see you have found a spot for Adam & Eve, now it’s time to fig­ure out how the Elo­him made them, it’s in the Sumer­ian Tablets. All of it and it con­nects the Hebrews com­ing here, their large height and the love of the Pipe.

July 20, 2016 7:52 am

Here are a few things about the Hopewell that must be con­sid­ered when try­ing to claim they were the peo­ple of the Book of Mormon. A quick overview is that the Hopewell did not grow corn, it came after. They did not grow wheat either. They grew crops that were domes­ti­cat­ed in the East­ern U.S., inde­pen­dent of the plant domes­ti­ca­tions in Meso-Amer­i­ca and South Amer­i­ca. Their plants were already domes­ti­cat­ed before the time of Lehi’s alleged arrival. See “East­ern North Amer­i­ca as an inde­pen­dent cen­ter of plant domestication”. http://​www​.pnas​.org/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​1​0​3​/​3​3​/​1​2​2​2​3​.​f​u​ll.pdf DNA stud­ies tie the Hopewell to liv­ing peo­ple, most close­ly to the East­ern Sioux, Cheyenne, and Ara­pa­ho. Makes a per­son won­der why the tem­ple ded­i­ca­tion for the Bis­mark North Dako­ta tem­ple nev­er men­tioned Laman­ites or descen­dants from Father Lehi. See “New Study of Ancient DNA Reveals Pop­u­la­tion His­to­ry of North­east­ern North America” http://​ohio​his​to​ry​.word​press​.com/​2​0​0​8​/​0​9​/​0​4​/​n​e​w​-​s​t​u​d​y​-​o​f​-​a​n​c​i​e​n​t​-​d​n​a​-​r​e​v​e​a​l​s​-​p​o​p​u​l​a​t​i​o​n​-​h​i​s​t​o​r​y​-​o​f​-​n​o​r​t​h​e​a​s​t​e​r​n​-​n​o​r​t​h​-​a​m​erica/ The study men­tioned above is titled “Using Ancient… Read more »

Reply to  Dave Mack
July 21, 2016 7:43 pm

See pages 7 and 8 of Dr. Mil­l’s dis­ser­ta­tion con­cern­ing maize. The stud­ies are explained and sourced and the con­clu­sions are sound. The state­ment “Over­all, maize does not seem to be a major com­po­nent in the diet of any Ohio Val­ley pop­u­la­tion, includ­ing the Ohio Hopewell, pri­or to 1000 B.P.” is far more accu­rate and reli­able than Wikipedia or Brittanica. https://​etd​.ohi​olink​.edu/​!​e​t​d​.​s​e​n​d​_​f​i​l​e​?​a​c​c​e​s​s​i​o​n​=​o​s​u​1​0​5​4​6​0​5​4​6​7​&​d​i​s​p​o​s​i​t​i​o​n​=​inline “I’m not sure why you brought up the bureau of eth­nol­o­gy book. Many of the peo­ple who con­tributed to this book I quote exten­sive­ly through­out my research.” If you are not sure, then read it and study it begin­ning on page 595. Your con­clu­sions and far too many of your ideas are sim­ply flawed and wrong. I sug­gest you approach your study of the Hopewell with­out pre-con­ceived notions or bias caused by the Book of Mormon. https://​archive​.org/​s​t​r​e​a​m​/​b​u​r​e​a​u​o​f​e​t​h​n​o​l​o​g​y​0​0​t​h​o​m​r​i​c​h​#​p​a​g​e​/​5​9​4​/​m​o​de/2up “I already had accounts of ele­phant smoke pipes” David, those effi­gy ele­phant pipes… Read more »

Reply to  Dave Mack
July 21, 2016 8:34 pm

The book also states that the native Amer­i­cans believed in a mes­si­ah religion.”

David, you MUST re-read that page.

It had absolute­ly noth­ing to do with the Hopewell​.It was the Ghost Dance which cul­mi­nat­ed with the mas­sacre at Wound­ed Knee on Decem­ber 29, 1890.

March 15, 2016 7:58 am

Yeah , I will have to agree on the Wis­con­sin horse. A blog is not good doc­u­men­taion to con­firm or deny. I have to dis­agree with the Newark holy stones. How can this be con­firmed? Where is the evi­dence? Opin­ions can only be con­sid­ered as hearsay and not fact. If you have proof that Wyric hoxed the stones, I wel­come your input. Here is an ati­cle that list the facts. http://​sat​ur​ni​an​cos​mol​o​gy​.org/​f​i​l​e​s​/​.​c​d​r​o​m​/​j​o​u​r​n​a​l​s​/​h​o​r​u​s​/​v​0​2​0​3​/​h​o​r​u​s​06.htm

March 14, 2016 7:33 pm

here is the link: http://​www​.s8int​.com/​t​r​u​e​s​u​p​p​r​e​s​s​i​o​n​s​3.html scroll down to don’t need to car­bon date the farmer horse.

Reply to  Dave
March 14, 2016 7:48 pm

Thanks Dave. It is not the Spencer Lake horse skull, so that is now clar­i­fied. It appears those bones in your link were final­ly radio­car­bon dated. See this link. http://​www​.ancient​lost​trea​sures​.com/​f​o​r​u​m​/​v​i​e​w​t​o​p​i​c​.​p​h​p​?​f​=​5​0​&​t=1201 Post Number:#3 Post­by Won­HooSeeks » Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:02 pm After con­tact­ing the UWMilw. per­son that has over­sight of these horse bones, I received this reply, list­ed below in it’s entire­ty. Won Tue 22/08/2006 1) There was indeed a horse found in a bur­ial mound exca­vat­ed by WC McK­ern in the ear­ly part of the 20th cen­tu­ry. Horse and cow bones are very com­mon dis­cov­er­ies at archae­o­log­i­cal sites locat­ed on mod­ern farms, and their pres­ence by them­selves isn’t impor­tant. What is impor­tant is the strati­graph­ic con­text of the bones. 2) McK­ern (a major fig­ure in mid­west­ern archae­ol­o­gy) con­sid­ered the horse to be a mod­ern bur­ial (i.e., a post-euro­pean depo­si­tion), based on the archae­o­log­i­cal deposits. The stratig­ra­phy showed that the horse had been buried long… Read more »

Reply to  Dave
March 14, 2016 8:55 pm

After study­ing this a lit­tle more, I have changed my mind. It appears to be the Spencer Lake hoax skull, as that was found by McK­ern as men­tioned in the 2006 reply report­ed by Won.

The link you gave con­tains many ques­tion­able claims such as the Newark Stones (a con­firmed hoax), and I’m sus­pi­cious that the claim of the horse was found in 1985, rather I sus­pect it is real­ly about the ear­li­er Spencer Lake skull. One of the prob­lems with sources like that link is that it does­n’t give ref­er­ences that can be checked. It is just state­ments and claims with no way to ver­i­fy. Until bet­ter sources are pro­vid­ed, I’m going to con­sid­er it the Spencer Lake skull.

Reply to  Dave Mack
March 15, 2016 4:27 am

Dave, I did­n’t post the link to the arti­cle that you just quot­ed “Anoth­er Equ­us spec­i­men was iden­ti­fied by Elaine Ander­son, an expert on Equ­us iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, at Wolf Spi­der cave, Col­orado. It dat­ed to AD 1260 – 1400, again clear­ly before Colum­bus”. You post­ed the link to that arti­cle ear­li­er. Here is what you had post­ed to me:

Dave · March 14, 2016 at 11:58 am
I thought they did pub­lish the horse dates but could be a dif­fer­ent case. Look at the horse con­spir­a­cy site: http://​thewil​d​horsec​on​spir​a​cy​.org/​2​0​1​3​/​0​7​/​0​2​/​e​x​c​i​t​i​n​g​-​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​-​a​b​o​u​t​-​b​y​-​p​h​d​-​s​t​e​v​e​n​-​j​o​n​e​s​-​r​e​-​m​o​r​e​-​r​e​c​e​n​t​-​s​u​r​v​i​v​i​n​g​-​n​a​t​i​v​e​-​h​o​r​s​e​-​i​n​-​n​o​r​t​h​-​a​m​erica/ Hors­es dat­ed before Colum­bus and after 11,000 BC.

You are quot­ing from your own link but claim­ing I post­ed it, which is sim­ply not true.

March 14, 2016 11:58 am

I thought they did pub­lish the horse dates but could be a dif­fer­ent case. Look at the horse con­spir­a­cy site: http://​thewil​d​horsec​on​spir​a​cy​.org/​2​0​1​3​/​0​7​/​0​2​/​e​x​c​i​t​i​n​g​-​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​-​a​b​o​u​t​-​b​y​-​p​h​d​-​s​t​e​v​e​n​-​j​o​n​e​s​-​r​e​-​m​o​r​e​-​r​e​c​e​n​t​-​s​u​r​v​i​v​i​n​g​-​n​a​t​i​v​e​-​h​o​r​s​e​-​i​n​-​n​o​r​t​h​-​a​m​erica/ Hors­es dat­ed before Colum­bus and after 11,000 BC. The point is this is a good dis­cus­sion that shouldn’t be ignored by most acad­e­mia. So is it pos­si­ble the Chi­nese explor­ers brought them, yes. Is it pos­si­ble that the Viking brought the horse to Amer­i­ca, yes. And is it pos­si­ble they nev­er went extinct, Yes. The prob­lem I have with the sta­tus quo is they are close mind­ed to any oth­er pos­si­bil­i­ty and can’t under­stand that the­o­ries are not fact until enough evi­dence is col­lect. I don’t think you can call some­thing as fact when you con­tra­dict­ing evi­dence. I have seen very lit­tle sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence to sug­gest the hors­es when extinct and find more evi­dence sug­gest­ing the contrary.

Reply to  Dave
March 14, 2016 1:53 pm

Dave, I must ask again. Could you please tell me the arti­cle that you read about the Wis­con­sin archae­ol­o­gist who found the Indi­an pony in a bur­ial mound? Where was it found? Let’s get your source and make sure it isn’t the same one that has been repeat­ed but is bogus.

March 13, 2016 5:04 pm

I have read that salt water can leache the car­bon-14 from arche­o­log­i­cal Objects mak­ing them appear old­er. Thus if the flood did hap­pen cov­er­ing the whole earth it is pos­si­ble that the flood is the cause for some objects or humans bones hav­ing dates old­er than 4000BC. I find the pre­vi­ous post chal­lenge humor­ous to accept arche­o­log­i­cal evi­dence as absolute. When in fact there is lit­tle evi­dence to sup­port such the­o­ries as the beringia the­o­ry as fact. In fact I would­n’t call most these sci­en­tists who sup­port this thought as the­o­rists because the the­o­ry is more impor­tant than the evi­dence. For exam­ple I read in arti­cle the oth­er day how Wis­con­sin arche­ol­o­gist found an Indi­an pony in a Native Amer­i­can bur­ial mound and assumed with­out any evi­dence that a farmer buried the horse in the mound because every body knows no hors­es before Colum­bus. The “no hors­es before Colum­bus” is… Read more »

Reply to  Dave
March 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Dave, the car­bon-14 claims you make do not hold up to seri­ous study. You can eas­i­ly research the facts if you do so with­out bias. But what con­cerns me most right now is your state­ment about the Wis­con­sin horse skull hoax. Please don’t con­tin­ue to repeat that one, too many LDS mem­bers have fall­en for it and it needs to stop. Here are some facts with sources, please con­sid­er them and stop the spread of bogus claims. In 1935 a horse skull was found in a Wis­con­sin mound. In 1936 a col­lege stu­dent found out about the skull. He con­fessed that when he was in his teens he and a friend had buried that skull in the mound. Like teens today, they laughed what some­one would think if they found it two hun­dred years lat­er but as an adult he want­ed to make things right. The con­fes­sion did not get… Read more »

Reply to  Dave Mack
March 13, 2016 11:16 pm

Dave, you had said “For exam­ple I read in arti­cle the oth­er day how Wis­con­sin arche­ol­o­gist found an Indi­an pony in a Native Amer­i­can bur­ial mound and assumed with­out any evi­dence that a farmer buried the horse in the mound because every body knows no hors­es before Columbus.”

Now you say “I have not heard of the Wis­con­sin horse skull story.”

Could you please tell me the arti­cle that you read? Who was the Wis­con­sin archae­ol­o­gist who found the Indi­an pony in a bur­ial mound? Where was it found? Let’s get your source and make sure it isn’t the same one that has been repeat­ed but is bogus.

February 22, 2016 6:17 am

I was impressed by the effort put into this until I got to the conclusion.

I do not believe that human life as we know it exist­ed beyond 4000BC years.”

That is a rather big pre-con­di­tion to put on any gen­uine open-mind­ed research.

January 16, 2016 6:08 pm

David, you have faith that radio car­bon dat­ing past 4000BC years is wrong. This sin­gle state­ment in your con­clu­sion sets the stage for how dif­fi­cult It will be to dis­prove all of your claims to you, in a man­ner that will meet your sat­is­fac­tion. On the oth­er hand, all of your claims have been dis­proved to the sat­is­fac­tion of sci­en­tists, archae­ol­o­gists, his­to­ri­ans, etc. Are you pre­pared to accept actu­al evi­dence with­out bias? Because if not, there is no point try­ing to dis­prove any­thing fur­ther to you. But if you are inter­est­ed in truth no mat­ter what the out­come might be and no mat­ter what you have faith in right now, if you are will­ing to dis­card your faith if it is proven wrong, I can help steer you to many cred­i­ble sources con­cern­ing your claims. Are you will­ing to face that chal­lenge? If not, let’s wait until you are.