Відео

The Book of Mormon takes place where Tattoo and Mr Rourke live

Tell us you don’t study all sides without telling us you don’t study all sides

I'm thankful for the Holy Ghost, because I can have the truth confirmed to my spirit and no amount of persuasion can convince me otherwise...then witnessing miracles like that taught in the Bible in my own life is icing on the cake. I pray that you can receive such a witness yourself.

@@Eluzian86 ooh I have no issue with the Big Boss.... I have 110% faith in the Creator, its the Gods of books and man that I have zero faith in. I would hope you understand I am not trying to convert anyone just help them see......

@@josephbradshaw7584 Yeah, that works. If you're making a fictitious map, like from Lord of the Rings or something.

@Peedarb Huh? So you think the Book of Mormon is fictitious?

The internal models have a number of issues from incorrect interpretations in my opinion. For example: The Four Cardinal Seas and the Narrow Strip of Wilderness: It is assumed the four cardinal seas are oceans located around the lands of The Book of Mormon as a whole. Also, the narrow strip of wilderness almost never has the shape described in the scripture. - Sea North and Sea South are not mentioned by name in Alma 22. They're mentioned a generation later in Helaman 3:8 when there was a mass migration from Zarahemla to settle the land of Desolation. When it is talking about the people covering the land from Sea South to Sea North, and from Sea West to Sea East, I believe it's referring to the land of Desolation, not the Book of Mormon lands as a whole. - It is assumed the narrow strip of wilderness is a natural feature of geography that happens to correspond to the borders between the Nephites and Lamanites. It is a wilderness bordering other wildernesses which tells me it's a wilderness where nobody lives as compared to the east, west, and north wildernesses where Lamanites dwell. I believe it's simply a no-man's-land or buffer zone between two groups who are regularly in conflict. - The narrow strip of wilderness also has a specific shape which helps us understand the extent of the land of Nephi as well. It is seen by the words "round about", which means: on all sides or in all directions; surrounding someone or something; in or to the opposite direction. In Alma 22:27, the King of the Lamanites is sending a Proclamation from all sides of the city of Nephi in every direction even to the sea, on the east and on the west. It is an assumption that it's referring to the sea east and sea west. It could simply be directional and refer to a body of water in that direction which could be different than sea east and sea west. When tied in context with the term "round about" in Alma 22:27, the seashore would extend from directly east of the city if Nephi, then southward and around until it is longitudinally west of the city of Nephi. It doesn't extend directly west of the city of Nephi because that's where the land of Nephi borders the west wilderness. The land if Nephi would then have seashore to the east and south, and land to the west and north. - The narrow strip of wilderness has two ends. One end touches both the borders of the north wilderness and the seashore of sea west. The other end touches the seashore of sea east. Therefore, it starts north of Zarahemla and runs south. Because it needs to end up going in or to the opposite direction, it needs to start turning around. I believe it turns east at the city of Manti, then continues east passed the head of the river Sidon, then back northward after reaching the east wilderness unil it runs into sea east. Therefore, you end up with the narrow strip of wilderness in a "U" shape with both sea west and sea east to the north, with the narrow strip of wilderness going "round about" the Nephites, or surrounding them on all sides in every direction aside from the way north into the land of Desolation.

Book of Mormon Distances and Travel Times: I think people trying to estimate distances in The Book of Mormon aren't taking all factors into account from the script itself in their estimations. For example Alma's people are estimated by scholars to have only traveled about 88 miles in 8 days (Mosiah 23:1-5). However, an important detail I believed they missed was the line, "...And the Lord did strengthen them, that the people of King Noah could not overtake them...". They estimated the normal travel time a people would have when bringing their flocks and herds with them, at 11 miles per day. That is a reasonable estimate under normal circumstances, but the text indicates God blessed them with greater speed and endurance so they could outrun their pursuers. The people of Noah would likely be pursuing at forced march speed, which would be 20 - 30 miles per day. Therefore, I believe Alma's people would have had to travel a minimum of 21 miles per day to outrun their pursuers. That means they likely traveled between 168 - 240 miles rather than 88. As far as the distance traveled in the 13 day period in Mosiah 24:17-25, the Lord stopped their pursuers in the valley of Alma, so they could travel during the 12 day period at normal speed. Their speed could have been 8 - 15 miles per day. That would be a distance of 104 - 195 miles. If their travels were directed toward Zarahemla for both travel periods, then Zarahemla would be between 272 - 435 miles from the Waters of Mormon. That distance would fit the Heartland Model. If Big Spring, Missouri is the Waters of Mormon and Zarahemla is across the Mississippi River from Nauvoo, Illinois, then that gives a distance of 320 miles. If the people of Alma traveled 11 miles per day in the 13 day period, then the Lord would have strengthened them to travel approximately 22 miles a day in the 8 day period. King Noah's people would likely be irregular unlike the regular Roman infantry that could do the 30 miles per day pace, so it would make sense if they could only do about 20 miles per day. 22 miles per day would be just enough to outrun them, which is all that would be needed. I think a reevaluation of the text by the scholars would be warranted.

The Head of the River Sidon Here's a thought I had in relation to the confluence of the Mississippi River and Ohio River as the head of the river Sidon: In the Heartland Model the land of Nephi was first established in the Tennessee area after the Nephites separated themselves from the Lamanites between 588 BC - 570 BC. Mosiah left and discovered the Mulekites in Zarahemla between 279 BC - 130 BC. The Mulekites had lived in that area the whole time since their arrival, and since the Mulekites weren't discovered earlier, it'd likely the Nephites had remained around the Tennessee area that whole time as well since their separation from the Lamanites. The Nephites probably new about the confluence of the two rivers but didn't have a reason to go north of the confluence yet for at least 291 years, and so could have referred to the confluence as the head of the river Sidon during that period. The Mulekites likely did not control nor travel to northern Minnesota where Lake Itasca is located because that would be within the north wilderness based off of the Alma 22 description. They also likely didn't travel far enough south to know about that major confluence and so wouldn't have a reason to name it. The tributaries they would know about wouldn't be significant enough to the Mississippi to call those confluences heads. Mosiah arrives in Zarahemla and teaches their people. They are so greatful to him they make him King. At this point, the Nephites would be accustomed to calling that confluence the head of the river Sidon, and the Mulekites simply adopted their lexicon since they probably didn't hav a name for it before then anyway. The Nephites still don't control the area where the head of the Mississippi River is, and so there's no need to go through the trouble of no longer calling that confluence the head of the river. In this way, historically and culturally, the confluence of the Mississippi River and Ohio River could gain and retain the title of "head of the river Sidon". Additional information: The battle against the Amlicites and Lamanites on the river Sidon by Zarahemla in Alma 2, I believe indicates a point on the river Sidon by Zarahemla that could be crossed on foot. This also establishes the river Sidon north of the head of the river Sidon in a north to south orientation. The battle where Moroni surrounds Zarahemnah in Alma 43 I believe indicates a deeper area of river crossing than the one in the north. It also indicates the river Sidon running south of the head of the river Sidon as well. The head of the river Sidon is part of the dividing border between Nephites and Lamanites and there's lots of wilderness named in the west of the land Nephi in the vicinity of the city of Manti, but not on the Nephite side of the border. Also, an army not expecting their enemy to know where they went would be traveling would be traveling through friendly territory. Therefore, the Lamanites would be falling back southward of the head of the river Sidon, then turn west to cross Sidon in the wilderness by the borders of the land of Manti. The Nephites would have to have marched southward into the west wilderness of the Lamanites to ambush them at their river crossing. The Nephites have a longer distance to march than the Lamanites, but would march faster with a smaller army. The Nephites would be at forced march speed with the Lamanites at normal relaxed speed, saving energy for battle to come. Anyway, Lehi's men do not pursue across the river on foot as appeared possible in the battle in Alma 2. They probably had to make the crossing in the south in boats. Which would make securing that side of the river easy and dangerous to pursue an enemy across it. In short, the river Sidon is established in the text as running both on the north and south of the head if the river Sidon in a north to south orientation. So either there are multiple rivers named Sidon with the same headwaters as their source, or it's the same river with a prominent confluence being referred to as the head. I think the possible indications of a shallower river in the north and deeper river in the south points to the head of the river Sidon being the most prominent confluence of the river, and the river having a southward flow with the source of the river north of Zarahemla somewhere outside of Nephite control. What are your thoughts on this interpretation?

The Cherokee have Jewish DNA

@@Pacman3344 Give je the scientific proof of this claim.

What specifically do you think is nonsense?

Zarahemla was south of the Narrow Neck of Land, for Zarahemla had been conquered by the time the Nephites were pushed back into the northern parts of the land north of the Narrow Neck of Land...You are mistaken on your Book of Mormon geography.

@@Eluzian86 Well, I mean it’s all made up. But yes, what you’re saying rings a bell.

What are the primary reasons you say it is false?

I feel that it rings true. Matches the timelines and it actually does end on Cumorah .. it does make sense. Having an open mind and looking for more than one source. Also, Read "he walked the America's "

You are ignorant and no theologian, that's for sure! Here is what the Interpreters Bible states about, a non Mormon world famous Bible commentary that has input from more than 900 scholars; "1 Corinthians 15:29 Baptism for the dead, that rapture of the cosmos, Paul turns to an interesting item of church.practice in Corinth and probably elsewhere too and uses it to reinforce his main point......."

Christ prayed for his Apostles to be one as he and the Father are one. Was he praying for his Apostles to be 12 persons that are one being or substance?

@Eluzian86 Where in the world did you get that unbiblical idea from?? No wonder you Mormons can't understand the Bible, you all depend too much on existential revelation and half-witted out-of-context Bible readings.

Have some respect ... you act like they pulled this religion out of a hat.

@@thomasfischer9259 Well played! Well played indeed.

I'll pray for you. ❤

Because native Americans came from Israel, dont you have some dead jewish people to baptize. Thankyou for your prayers

its made up its not real

​@karma1511 the Book of Mormon takes place on Fantasy Island

@@richarner3856 I disagree. It fits Ethiopia perfectly and is a true history of a branch of Ethiopian Jews. It's totally internally consistent in ways that have blown my mind. What's not true is that it happened in America. That's totally false.

Spain has an abundance of hills and is surrounded by water. Maybe Lehi took a Phoenician route to Iberia.

@@evenbet9603 Maybe but because Alma 22:32 matches Herodotus description of Africa, I believe it happened in Africa. As I said above, Genesis 2:13 describes Ethiopia as an option for The Garden of Eden so it become obvious that the river in the Tree of Life Vision is the Nile that leads upriver to Ethiopia. The Blue Nile has it's source in Ethiopia and the vision claims Lehi's family arrives at the "head" of the river. The vision is a map of Africa and the river in the vision is the Nile.

Joseph Smith used am unpublished history of Ethiopia and claimed it was America. The stories are true but they happened to Ethiopian Jews. ALL the geography fits Ethiopia. The Land South is Africa, the Narrow Neck is The Isthmus of Suez, the Northward flowing River is the Nile. The Sea East is the Red Sea, the Sea West is the Mediterranean. The Tree of Life Vision commands Lehi to follow the Nile River out of Egypt, upstream to Ethiopia. This is the "head" of the River and the location of the Garden of Eden according to the Bible. Jeremiah 44 and Helaman 3 both describe Egypt as "Desolation". Helaman 3 is describing a migration from Ethiopia to Egypt.

@@redfightblue It’s just all borrowed lore. That makes it untrue; simply Frankenstein lore (pieced together from various narratives) in order to form a religious group based on Joseph Smith’s personal ideas.

@@rkn2800 I agree there's no way to tell if the Nephites actually existed or if it's just lore as you claim. My point is that if it is lore, it matches Ethiopian lore, geography, religion, myth, culture and tradition, not America. The root of the Book of Mormon was found in Ethiopia, probably by James Bruce, and before it was published, it was substituted for America. Ethiopia was out (possibly censored or edited out) and America was in. If it was published under the guise of being Ethiopian no one would question it. It would fit perfectly with Ethiopian Jewish point of view. That doesn't make it true. Just like Bible stories can't be proven, the stories in the Book of Mormon can't be proven either. But we can say where they came from and who wrote them. The Book of Ether, for example, is clearly the Ethiopian Genesis. It claims Ethiopians left the Garden of Eden in Ethiopia, sailed down the Nile (North) and arrived at the Mediterranean Sea in Egypt. After divine intervention, they sailed to Israel in the Middle East. The book gives credit to Ethiopians for bringing the Garden of Eden to the Biblical Land of Milk and Honey (they call honey "Deseret" for some reason). It doesn't mean it's true.

Lehi and family was actually landed first in Chile, South America , they move north and move again northward and was ended up in USA North America. Book of Mormon happened in both North and South America.

@@redfightblue no, book of Mormon take place both North and South America. They landed first in Chile, South America then they move north in the place that was now called Peru, then move again northward somewhere in Mexico or central America, then they move again northward to North America in USA.

You forgot the Fantasy Island model 😂😂😂

Thou shall not bare fault witness

@@Tk.utelab Really? Mormons don't believe in the Holy Trinity the God of Christianity. They reject Jesus as God. Mormons follow a false god they've made up. Any Christian would know it's 'bear' not 'bare'.

​​@johnmarquardt1991 Then Christ and his apostles are also not christian by your reckoning, since the trinity didn't exist until the Nicene Creed. I think that puts us in good company. And saying that we don't accept Christ as God is overt and gratuitous false witness bearing. Disdain doesn't make lying acceptible.

@@Tk.utelab Exposing an anti-Christian cult is not bearing false witness.

@@cognitiveresonance339 Silly Mormon -- the Holy Trinity has always existed. Read Genesis - you'll see the Holy Spirit in the first chapter and Jesus soon after. Christians did not create their God, the Holy Trinity - God has always existed. In your 'religion' you've created a god, a man. Read your own website ... it says that your Jesus is the brother of Satan both the sons of your god. I think I know more about your fake religion than you do.

Are you a better/smarter good man stuck in your views? Pride? How about evidence. The evidence shows that the climate was much warmer during book of Mormon times. Yes, the climate does change without mans intervention. Wayne May always uses the word "theory". He always ends his presentations with "you decide". I would suggest no pride for him.

Yet there are solid hints of colder weather, including the wearing of animal skins. They experienced seasons (that may or may not have had the same meaning we apply today (see Alma 46:40), even that wild beasts migrated during certain seasons (see Mosiah 18:4). They knew what hail was (Mosiah 12:6; Hel 5:12) and they knew what snow was (1 Nephi 11:8). Imagine the indigenous people of Central America trying to describe or understand a hailstorm. Yet the BOM authors included those descriptions. I don't know if we should expect details about the weather to be included on written plates that were difficult to describe, and whose purpose was to restore Israel and testify of Jesus Christ. We don't have a meteorology report. But there are hints.

This is a false, persisting, preconcieved notion... that the Nephites didn't deal with cold weather. Why would any prophet waste space on the plates to discuss the weather? Also, there are references to cold weather, like when the Lamanites came upon the Nephites in the winter (eleventh month) and had to have heavy coats of skin to cover themselves. (Alma 49)

How is it too small, especially when there was tens of millions of buffalo that could be used for food?

I can't tell you how many claims I've seen fade away as further discoveries disprove earlier assumptions.

Well said! As I am sure you are aware, you have only scratched the surface of the numerous problems the BOM has when attempting to confirm the existence of the people and surroundings mentioned in it. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and feelings.

It has taken nearly 200 hundred years to nearly scratch the surface? ​@user-gu4jh9is4i

What if you’re wrong? Your feelings are kind of strong about something you can’t prove or disprove, doesn’t seem smart. Let’s suppose no archaeological evidence of the BofM exists, it’s of no consequence to me and weighs no bearing on what I believe, how are you so sure it’s not out there? Are you a fortune teller? Maybe you prayed about it? 😜 Smart people hold judgement about things they do not know. Wanting the BofM to be false does not make it so.

Speaking of bending reality...the View of the Hebrews as a source for the Book of Mormon that not even most serious critics make that claim anymore. In fact, after the real manuscript was found, bearing very little resemblance to the Book of Mormon, critics had to invent another theory - THERE MUST HAVE BEEN ANOTHER MANUSCRIPT! Now they refer to it as the "Manuscript Lost". But there's not a shred of evidence that it exists anywhere. But the argument occasionally resurfaces (like now). Other theories include the Spaulding Manuscript, that it was written by someone like Sidney Rigdon or even that the devil inspired it. Those theories are all easily dismissed by any serious student. For one, there are a number of distinct voices in the Book of Mormon. It was not written by a single author. Two, there are hundreds of examples of Hebraisms, not from 19th century America, but from Ancient Israel. Chiasmus is one example of these Hebraisms. Cognate Accusatives, synthetic parallelisms, and many more are abundant. Three, we can actually trace the route Lehi took in the desert with a high degree of accuracy. That's because the Book of Mormon describes in detail places like the Valley of Lemuel, River of Laman (located in northwest Arabia at a place now known as Wadi Tayyib al-Ism), Shazer, Nahom (there is mounting evidence that has become more and more difficult for critics to explain away) and Bountiful. These places date to the right times, are in precisely the locations described in the Book of Mormon and meet the criteria of dozens of required elements described in the record. None of this was known to anyone in the Western world in the early 1800s. It certainly wasn't known to an uneducated schoolboy who didn't even know there were walls surrounding Jerusalem. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that states that the Nephites were the largest population and in fact, the internal evidence suggests otherwise. It's also very likely that the Lamanites intermarried with existing populations, as they did not keep the law of Moses and would not have likely considered intermarriage to have been an issue. Regarding the charge of plagiarism, I could make the same charge of passages in the New Testament, that were "plagiarized" from the Old. God speaks to every man in his own language (2 Nephi 31:3) and the only books available to Joseph Smith would have likely have been the KJV of the Bible. His family read from it often and he was familiar with its pages. In other words, those words were "his own language". Of course there would be traces of his language in the Book of Mormon translation. If you disagree (and I'm sure you do), why not take me up on a challenge. Come up with a book of nearly 600 pages, 269,320 words, with a high level of internal consistency throughout the book. You must come up with dozens of new names, many of which will be discovered to be authentically ancient & Semitic in a few decades from now. This book must beautifully expand on doctrines not fully described by the Bible. It must be so moving that millions will be converted by the power they feel when the study. And I could go on (but won't) about the many other divine attributes your book must possess. Let me finish with a question. Why the hard heart? Why do you refuse to believe the promises of God? The Father of all creation has promised that anyone who sincerely studies and ponders the Book of Mormon, and then prays to receive knowledge about its truthfulness, will know for certainty through the power of the Holy Ghost, that it is true. I've experienced the fulfillment of that promise in my life and you can too - if you are willing to pay the price to gain that knowledge for yourself. Stop believing the modern-day Pharisees, who spend their times kicking at the pricks. Instead, turn to God and listen to His voice as He testifies of the truth.

​​@@TheRealDonLaytonamazing. I prayed and got the answer from the God of the Bible, Jacob, Israel, Moses, Adam, ect that the Book of Mormon is true. I have happiness and the love of God and Jesus Christ in my life now. ❤ I'll pray for you. I hope your family is well and has continued good health.