Well this just isn't right, she got wrong information. Did you watch this video? There are no DNA marks that middle eastern people ever were there.

I was watching a western on TV , can’t remember the name . In the story a new hand is coming onto this ranch. The owner is telling him things about the ranch , then he introduces his Indian hand and states he , the Indian, “thinks he’s an Israelite .” I was so surprised to hear that in a movie. Maybe it’s stories handed down the generations because the Indians didn’t write events down. I found it interesting , that bits of truth are revealed somehow .

Gregorio García (an Spaniard colonizer) wrote some books about the similarities in appearance, custom (including idolatry) and language (including the frequency of glottals) that the lost tribes of Israel travelled to the Americas alongside other migrations. Also, García asserted that "Mex-" in "Mexico" was based on the Hebrew term "Messiah". García argued that circumcision was common among indigenous peoples of the Americas, particularly in the Yucatán and Cuba.

​@@Irvingdector Mexico is a nahuatl word.

She probably heard it in a Bob Marley song 🎶 😊

Because we learn line upon line, precept upon precept.

The Principle ancestor comments where never in the BOM text. The claim was written by contemporary apostles. And not everyone agreed among the 12 apostles even on this issue. Regardless of this the Book is either true or false. Based on my study and experience I happen to believe in its divine origin.

@@brettmajeske3525 You said, "Because we learn line upon line, precept upon precept." Why make such a significant change in Mormon belief quietly? Most members don't even know it was changed unless someone points it out to them. Why not publicize the correction to all members so they know the truth? That truth that: 1) the church’s belief and teachings for more than 170+ years, that MOST, IF NOT ALL, of the American Indians are direct descendants of the BoM Lamanites is NOT true, and 2) that the church now believes and teaches that ONLY SOME American Indians are descended from the Lamanites of the BoM, despite lack of DNA evidence to even support this new belief.

@@adamholloway7963 Well, for what it is worth, only the text of the Book of Mormon is considered scripture, the forward/explanation is merely commentary. Members do know there is a diversity of opinions among leaders. Different eras have different footnotes. I do not know any member over the age of 20 who isn't a complete idiot who doesn't understand that. So thanks for the Strawman argument.

@@brettmajeske3525 You said, "Well, for what it is worth, only the text of the Book of Mormon is considered scripture, the forward/explanation is merely commentary." I didn't claim it wasn't. And, the teaching that most if not all Native Americans were descendants of the BoM Lamanites was not limited to the text in the Introduction of the BoM. You said, "Members do know there is a diversity of opinions among leaders." I didn't claim they don't. You said, "Different eras have different footnotes." I didn't claim they don't. You said, "I do not know any member over the age of 20 who isn't a complete idiot who doesn't understand that.." I didn't make that claim. You said, "So thanks for the Strawman argument." What strawman argument? Please point out the "strawman argument" that you claim I made. Based on your reply, you don't seem to understand what I said in my comment.

There is actually Middle Eastern DNA among Native Americans. I'm a little surprised David missed this but Middle Eastern DNA is the only other DNA, besides East Asian, that exists among native Americans. At least, as far as we know today.

I do concede that genetic research is tentative and has a long way to go. However, I also find genetics to be far more consistent and reliable in the effort of investigating genealogy than the unsubstantiated claims of a 19th century proselytizer.

Because there is a minuscule connection if there’s any connection at all. In short, the Book of Mormon is fiction. And I’m not saying that to be a hater. I wanted the church to be true so badly. But I can’t ignore facts. If the church is going to claim the BoM is historical when it demonstrably isn’t, I’m not going to devote my life to it.

Not so-kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a9aXjcWks9fZopc.html

As with a ton of videos from this channel

Skin tone does not matter . The there are blacks who are albino.

The skin tone was likely diseased by other factors. Europeans had "dark skin" during the black plague. They didn't change race rather it was rather the boils and scars that was on their skins causing it to be black.

Ethan F. in general I agree, but so much more powerful when the BOM is placed in the right national boundaries.

It took the LDS church till the 1970s to give black people a right to be preachers when the people in the Book of Mormon come from the Middle East so they most likely had dark skin and Jesus himself had darkskin. Also the polygamy and how Joseph smith lied and had others lie for him about the polygamy. And the how the book of Abraham was translated from the book of breathings and the book of the dead that has 0 mention of Abraham

come back to church bro. cmon ur better than this

the Jaredites were neither jewish, or even hebrew.

@@tylerprice4415 ...Got some Bernie Madoff stock certificates for you, Bro...

You mean the "candles" , Abraham's camels , etc. in the Bible ?

Even they are not jew, they should look like like middle eastern people because the northern Israel people when they get destroyed they are scattered in nearby places like Turkey, IRAQ, IRAN ,LEBANON AND IN NORTHERN EUROPE and some of the tribes are in south Israel

silly mormon. no.

Check out their other videos

Also the linguistic evidence didn't add up.

Regarding archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e7WAedKTlcnOlqs.html

Don't worry, even the argument presented in this video is insufficient to justify belief in the Book of Mormon. See my comment thread posted around two weeks ago.

@@sarak6860 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bcWoldSjmr2-j6M.html

I would encourage you to read what the Bible says about false gospels.God bless

@@mirandahopkins3676 Odd that you throw this statement in here that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It must mean a lot to you. I assume this is the scripture you speak of… Galatians 1: 8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” I hope you can see that this statement begs the question: What gospel is Paul talking about? Who, if anyone, has the wrong gospel? First of all, I think it is significant to realize that the gospel is already being distorted so soon after Christ’s death. So what IS the gospel? Well, what did Jesus and the apostles teach in the Bible? They taught many things, but the basics of the gospel that they taught are faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. This is the gospel. Jesus gives it well in the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi, “This is my gospel… that I came into the world… that I might be lifted up upon the cross… that I might draw all men unto me… that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled, if he endureth to the end, behold him will I hold guiltless before my Father.” This is the gospel I believe. What is yours?

@@dkbradshaw Mormons believe blacks weren't allowed the priesthood because of Ham seeing his fathers nakednes. So they believe that his sin was passed down to Hams decendents. Because Ham means black in Greek they believe Ham to be black person(ME TOO). So his son Canaan was chose as the descendent that was punished. Because his father Ham is called black , that should mean all blacks come from Canaan. Problem with this theory is Ham had 4 kids. So how can they say all blacks were denied when all blacks didn't come from Canaan. How did the Mormons decide which blacks came from Canaan and which blacks came from the other 3 children. They didn't, they just said all blacks can't recieve it because of the curse. But the curse was only for Canaan's decendents. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

@@johnfonua I hope this helps you out... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gdyHg9B9sbyXeqs.html In my mind, the history you describe is irrelevant. The reason for the ban, whether because of racism or ignorance does not matter either, but I believe it WAS meant to be. It was a stumbling block (as was polygamy) to the casual believer, and racism was still a problem, not just for the LDS, but all faiths. I hope you will check out the link--very informative.

@@johnfonua Mostly this is a straw man, neither LDS scriptures nor Brigham Young used the rationality you claim. I think you are confusing LDS with Southern Baptists and Methodists who promoted the curse of Ham justification for slavery. Frankly the policy was not well explained or understood. Brigham did not establish any formal rules, just refused to ordain some without any official policy. After that it was basically a matter of tradition. Some local Bishops did continue to ordain some African-Americans to the Aaronic priesthood until 1908. Even then that practice only applied to Africans. Other dark skinned groups, such as those from India or south pacific never had any kind of priesthood restriction. Mauri were ordained as Bishops during Brigham Young's lifetime.

Autosomal DNA tests can only really test ancestry for the last 200 years. DNA autosomal testing is best guesswork when it comes to ethnic origins which are not always so cut and dry with explanations. *I'm a DNA genealogist so I know a few things about DNA

You probably almost certainly have some Hispanic heritage.

Yeah you're right, there really isn't any possible way to completely prove that the Book of Mormon is true. There is plenty of evidence for it (and against it) and it's up to us to decide. That's where faith comes in. Faith is a fundamental part of every religion and to some that may seem stupid, blind, or gullible, but to those that have experienced it, it is something much greater. Faith is a hope and a belief in things that we don't fully know, but that we hope to be true. No matter how much evidence we have, it will still always be a hope. However, we believe that God can strengthen that hope as we continually have faith in him. You can think what every you want, and people can find as much evidence as they can, but in reality, it is only by faith that we can know the truth. This channel made a really good video about faith that you may want to check out too.

Actually there is proof

@@Hpencer exactly

If God wished to prove it, he would. Just as if God wished to prove Christ’s resurrection, he would. There is adequate internal and external evidence to believe but not so much that God would have to condemn the unbeliever so harshly. Same reason Christ taught in parables.

@@calebjenkins3215 You said, "...but in reality, it is only by faith that we can know the truth". If faith, not evidence, is ultimately how someone "can know the truth", then every other religion in the world outside of the LDS Church is just as true as the LDS Church because the followers/members of those religions have just as much, if not more, faith in the truthfulness of their religion as members of the LDS Church have in theirs. Believing something is true and/or exercising faith that something is true has no bearing on whether it is actually true. My kids believe that Santa Clause, his flying reindeer, and his toy making elves are all real and all live in the North Pole. They exercise faith in their belief by trying to be good throughout the year, writing letters to Santa asking for specific gifts they desire, and going to bed on time on Christmas Eve so that he will come to deliver their presents. They experience positive emotions and good feelings when they exercise faith in their belief. My kids can even point to "evidence" that supports their belief that Santa is real. Does their “evidence” prove that Santa, his elves, and his flying reindeer really do exist? No. Their “evidence” just supports their belief that it is all real. Do they benefit from that belief? I believe they do benefit to some degree at this point in their lives. However, one day, they will begin to apply critical thinking skills to that belief and realize that reindeer can’t fly, Santa can’t deliver presents to all the children of the world in a single night, toy making elves don’t exist, and none of them live in the North Pole. And, despite the fact that they benefited from their belief in Santa for a period in their lives and their belief helped produce positive emotions/good feelings for them, they will outgrow that false belief when it no longer benefits them.

Because Mormonism is a lie and the longer you go along with it, the more they can fleece you.

You are so welcome!

There’s no blue skittles! Therefore the Book of Mormon is FALSE!!!!!

The video's claim was not about providing an historic proof, but the refutation of an objection, which is logically permissible. I would also differentiate between insufficient proof and no proof.

Best comment on here!

To my atheist friends: Unexplicable Claims are essential for religion. Every religion carries extraordinary claims and that's kind of the point. If they were usual, we would be in your boat going off the edge of the world. To point out every religious claim needs to be rejected based on absence of physical evidence is not original and futile. We know that. Followers still follow because Science hasn't provided an good alternative. For a world struggling on whether they are a boy or a girl you definitely have more important uses of your time in helping people understand what is right or wrong instead of stating obvious claims are not supported fully yet.

@@brettmajeske3525 All of the "insuficiant proof" is proof that the BoM is fiction.

Looking for "extraordinary proofs" is simply not the way science gathers evidence, no matter how often atheists demand it. If we simply have enough "ordinary evidence", then a premise can be supported. In this case, however, the evidence is greatly lacking, and the most logical conclusion should be accepted.

Unfortunately for those who earnestly believe or just wish it were all true. You are objective and logical. Yeah, you make sense. No one could some it up any better than you just did.

I trust the findings of Thomas Murphy and others like him because I have done my DNA research. They know what they are talking about. I did not base my decision about the church on DNA alone, but on many different factors after loads of research. I think that true believing members of the church should consider regarding the Book of Mormon as an allegory delivering lots of truth. The Catholic church now regards some of the Bible stories as allegorical. The same truth is delivered whether literal or not.

Keep studying because your studies are based on men who found factual evidence, not myth

Well I would not call it doctrine, but an interpretation, Hugh Nibley has written extensively on the subject. The BoM never uses the word extinct or extinction, in matter of fact it specifically states that at least one jaredite joined the mulekites, and that several mulekites joined the nephites. A culture or political organization can be destroyed without meaning the extinction of every constitute member. And your Holland quote doesn't mean that purpose could not have involved other groups. Indeed Nephi talks about this being a choice land for whomever the Lord chooses.

Brett Majeske Brett Majeske Ok, even if we assume that some Jaredites/Mulekites survived, the Book of Mormon claims that they too are of middle eastern dissent. Given doctrinal confirmation that the Americas were uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Jaredites, there is no reason to believe that their genetic makeup would be significantly different from that of the Nephites when they arrived.

@@enigmaticvaran6597 First of all, what doctrinal confirmation? The Americas are a big place, the only thing one can reasonably assume is that there was no one else living in the location the Jaredite first settled. There could have been dozens of unknown peoples living in distant corners at the same time. Or not, there is really no way to know. As for Jaredites being what we would consider middle eastern, do you know where the Tower of Babel was located? I do not, although most guess somewhere in eastern Iraq or Iran. The claim of the BoM is that the Jaredites came over 2-3000 BCE. Their described journey is travelling east for several years until they reached the sea, where they built boats to take them to the Americas. We have no understanding of of their ethno-cultural make up. Oliver Cowdry thought they were descendants of Ham not Shem. Hugh Nibley thought they might have been partly Asiatic, given that their described journey would have taken them to parts of modern Asia. We know even less about the Mulekite genetic make up. One of the big problems with DNA analysis is we don't know for what we are looking. We do not have a claimed route for the Mulekite journey, so we can not make any reasonable assumptions about whom they may have intermingled. The time scale alone complicates things. Genetic researchers look at statistical models based on current DNA patterns and then project backwards based on assumptions of migratory patterns. The father back in time one looks, the less accurate the modeling becomes. We do not even know what to look for with regards to Lehi and company. The BoM describes them as an ethnic minority descending from the tribe of Mannasa, not Juda. We do not know what differences may exist. There are no data bases for any of the Israelite tribes other than Juda and Levi. I agree DNA evidence fails to provide dispositive proof in favor of the BoM, but that is a long way from actually disproving either.

Brett Majeske Doctrinal confirmation that the Americas were literally uninhabited when the Jaredites arrived: The Great flood. The church accepts the literal interpretation of the Great flood story as doctrine. We know this for the following reasons: For one thing, the annotations provided in their print of the King James Bible as well as the Book of Moses. For example, The prelude to Genesis 7 reads "...The Flood comes, and water covers the WHOLE earth- ALL OTHER LIFE THAT BREATHES IS DESTROYED." If this were false doctrine, surely your church leaders would have objected to these annotations considering they are blessed with revelation and discernment. Further more, there is at least one article on the church's official website that defends the literal interpretation. Going back on that quote by Jeffery Holland, allow me to provide more of it: "Holy scripture records that after the waters [of the flood] had receded from off the face of the earth of this land, it became a choice land... ...to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler... ...without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of god's purposes... ...The Lord began almost at once to repelled the promised land. The Jaredites came FIRST..." But could people have colonized the Americas between the great flood and the Jaredites? Not according to Jeffery Holland, a general authority alledgely blessed with the gifts of revelation and discernment. But if those credentials don't satisfy you, here's a secular argument: Given the genealogy provided by the Book of Genesis, researchers determined the construction of the Tower of Babel would have taken place roughly one century after the flood (See Genesis 10 and 11). Hardly enough time for the genome of Noah and his descendants to have evolved into an entirely different ethnicity. So, given the church accepts the literal interpretation of the flood and the timeline required by the scriptures, we have doctrinal confirmation that there can't have been any people present in the Americas when the Jaredites arrived. The Tower of Babel: I don't believe the Tower of Babel existed in the first place, but for our purposes we'll go off of what was likely Joseph Smith's understanding. The Book of Genesis, the source from which Christianity and by extension Joseph Smith derived the Tower of Babel in the first place, describes the tower as having been built in the land of Shinar. Shinar is essentially Mesopotamia, which is historically located in The Middle East. So yes, to the understanding of Joseph Smith and his peers, people who would have lived there including the alleged Jaredites were Middle-eastern. The Mulekites: The church has posted an article on their official website that was featured in the 1987 ensign which details the implicit Middle-Eastern origins of the Mulekites, link provided below. If the church is confident enough to post and maintain its claims on their official website, it is safe to say they currently accept this interpretation as their official stance. www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/03/the-mulekites?lang=eng Hugh Nibley: I've only read snippets of his writings, but from what little I have read and what you're describing, his apologietics seem lacking in empirical data and rely largely on speculation to fill the gaps. Nibley's strategy for justifying belief in the Book of Mormon in the abscence of DNA evidence is to ambiguate the church's claims and suggest that they are open to interpretation. However, contrary to his efforts, the church does have official stances on some of these issues as detailed by their official website and general authorities. Weighing his speculatory apologetics against your church's official stances, I vote in favor of your church's official stances. DNA can't disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon: this is true, as given the absence of relevant data it is a negative claim. But by this standard, we might as well speculate that unicorns once roamed the earth because their existence cannot be disproven either.

@@enigmaticvaran6597 Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread, You Tube dropped the ball alerting me to your response. You seem to be operating under a number of misunderstandings. The beliefs of a single Apostle is not enough to qualify his opinion as official doctrine. Indeed there are some Apostles who view the story of Noah as literal, others who suscribe to a more figurative view. This difference in opinion goes back at least until the open debates between B.H. Roberts and Joseph F Smith over a hundred years. Yes Holland is a JFS loyalist, (not surprising as he is a great-grandson), others like Eyring and Nelson belong to the Roberts camp. The Church has no official stance regarding the matter. Whether literal or figurative, it is the lessons taught that matter to us today. As for Hugh Nibley, he was a linguist, and mostly stuck to his field of expertise. He relied on linguistic and literary evidences. Well yes, the Mulekites were certainly of Middle Eastern origins, we do not know their route and what other people may have mixed during their journey.

That is not a Biblical interpretation for faith. Faith is not without a reason to place your faith in it. Jesus calls himself a firm foundation for a reason.

@@stelladavis7832 can you quote the whole passage. If you do that you will see that seeing is not the only form of evidence. Mathew7:15¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. That is not blind faith at all. So the question stands. What was Joseph's fruit like?

I am not Mormon but I have read the book and it says He was the last of the nephites not the lamenites. So all the nephites died out but lamenites continued on which is why he supposedly buried the gold plates so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands

A chariot in the book of Mormon does not mean the same in the European sense or the horses. Book of Mormon does not say they were riding horses, find me a passage where it says that. Is not impossible that there was an animal that they might have called horse at that time.

@@legacy756 Horses are mentioned in eight different Book of Mormon that involve an ancient New World setting.1 Chronologically the first mention is in Jaredite times (Ether 9:19) and the last mention is among the Nephites in approximately 20 AD (3 Nephi 6:1).

@@txaggievet Horses are never ridden, they may have been used as a food source, and the Nephite text never says that chariots are used in war or even that they were wheeled or ridden. The English word “chariot” comes from Latin carrus, car, and is etymologically related to the verb to carry. The primary definition for chariot seems to be a device to carry some sort of load. We should not automatically assume that the Nephites understood chariots as wheeled war machines. Because no Book of Mormon verse says or suggests that chariots are mounted, dismounted, or that they carried people or were ridden (although this could be inferred from a twenty-first century view), we cannot say for certain what a Book of Mormon “chariot” means. Native American kings, for example, were often carried into war or to ceremonial events on litters or palanquins. These were sedans carried on the shoulders of other men and certainly fits the Hebrew definition of a “chariot.” The Book of Mormon, it must also be noted, never mentions horses “pulling” chariots. You can check more explanations on www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/horses-in-the-book-of-mormon.

@@optulent4041 There's a lot of content on that site for a lot of different topics, and I didn't see a clear 'evidence' section. Can you point me toward what you think is the strongest supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon?

@@kenhilker2507 - One DNA used to condemn the Book of Mormon is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Only women pass mtDNA to their children. All of us inherited our mtDNA from our mothers. The other genetic marker being used is the Y-chromosome (Y-chr), which is passed by men to their sons. Tom Murphy, Simon Southerton, and others claim the Book of Mormon is false because neither Middle East mtDNA nor Y-chr has been found among the American Indians. Here are a few reasons for that. Lehi and his family of no more than 40 individuals sailed into an area already populated by tens of thousands of people. They intermarried with the natives, and their mtDNA and Y-chr disappeared within a few generations. Another reason would be that after the arrival of Europeans in 1492, the native population of 100 million was drastically reduced by warfare and disease. In the National Geographic video "America Before Columbus," Professor Andrew Isenburg of Temple University said that upwards of 90% of the Indians died within 50 years. Entire villages and tribes vanished. That means that all DNA tests performed today would be on the descendants of the 10 or 20 percent who survived. That is not a very accurate sampling. Also, many tribes have refused to participate in any genetic database tests. My final reason is the unreliability of mtDNA and Y-chr. Our second daughter married a man whose paternal line is Danish and whose maternal line is Japanese. They have a daughter and two sons. All three children have the mtDNA of their mother, which is my wife's mtDNA, which is from Sweden. The boys have their father's Y-chr, which is from Denmark. Using the same tests that Murphy and Southerton cite to support their argument, one can prove that those children have Swedish ancestry, and that the boys have Danish ancestry. But NO ONE can prove that they also have Japanese ancestry! If those tests cannot find any mtDNA from their Japanese grandmother, who is alive, how reliable are those tests in finding Israelite mtDNA or Y-chr from 2,600 years ago? The lack of Japanese mtDNA in those children DOES NOT mean that they are not part Japanese! The lack of Israelite mtDNA or Y-chr in the surviving American Indians DOES NOT disprove the Book of Mormon! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@@GaryKColeman I think you need to go back and re read the book of mormon and get your facts straight about how much the land was populated and how much the New Jews landing from Israel affected the population over time according to the book of mormon. If the book of mormon is true it would be easy to find Native Americans with Jewish DNA

@@billyr9162 First, youtube did not alert me about your response. I only found it while checking another alert. Why don't you explain how much the land was populated and how much 30 people affected the population? Can you tell us how it should "be easy to find Native Americans with Jewish DNA? I stand by my comment. Can you show me where I'm wrong?

@@GaryKColeman Doesn't say so in the book of mormon? I don't remember the exact quote but I believe the book of mormon States that those 30 people populated the entire Americas. The American Indians might be one of the most research group in American history. Certainly someone would find Jewish DNA in them.

As you know, anything not 100% proven, can be made up. So of course it can't "hold up". Dinosaurs existing, holds up, even if we haven't seen one. (in the traditional sense of what a dinosaur is). That's because of the bones, of course. -- But no text or book about religion will ever hold up, until Jesus shows you himself. -- The point of a lot of these videos is reminding people that no one has been able to disprove anything about the LDS church, or even religion. Since you were not alive over 2000 years ago, you weren't there, and can't claim that the Laminates are totally made up. "but even still, since there's not enough evidence, it's probably made up, and that's good enough for me". Your presumed response (or rather, perhaps your presumed thoughts) is quite fallacious. -- Most people not believing in Judaism, therefore it's probably false, doesn't hold up to logic (and it's a typical stance of atheists). -- Science and religion will co-exist the way that we both want it to, at the right time. "I don't want religion to co-exist with science". This can't be true, or you never would've been born. "Prove this claim". I cannot, and it won't hold up if i try. "You sure are making a lot of 'absolute statements', and assuming a lot. That is fallacious, in and of itself". Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't need to matter.

Know one has been able to disprove anything about the LDS religion? Say what. Book of Abraham is not what it was once said to be. Now it is claimed it was not a direct translation. The fake kinderhook plates that Joseph Smith translated proven to be false. Lots of stuff about Joseph Smiths history. Church lying about removing plural marriage the first time. Just to name a few.

@@dark_winter8238 poor choice of words on my part. I meant, disprove anything about the church that would prove it to be a false religion. Of course things have been disproven, but mostly by the church itself. Like Joseph Smith sitting at the table clutching the golden plates, while reading the translations. Perhaps it was sugar coated, so it would help people believe it more. Sounds silly? Yes. But they knew that the stuff they sugar coated was true, and it didn't matter at the time. Obviously it matters now because of the internet.

Interesting theory. As per the video I'm personally very skeptical of 'DNA evidence' that attempts to either disprove or prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I think it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Rod Meldrum's theory was discredited by Ugo Perego, LDS geneticist.

Haplogroup x is one the critics try to avoid

Yes that is a great point doest the book of Mormon say that

She wasn't faithful enough...

@Richard Nelson, here's another vid with a bit of info to check out. There actually ARE similarities between between Israelites and certain Native American populations, including maternal haplogroup x (x2). kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a9aXjcWks9fZopc.html

Or, since there is exactly zero evidence for anything in the BoM and overwhelming evidence against all of it, the BoM could...maybe...just maybe...be a work of industrial-scale bulshit written by a convicted charlatan who claims to have translated it from a magic rock in his farm hat. Just sayin'....there's always that possibility. Just throwing it out there.

It was kept from other nations who would over run it. How long did it take us Europeans to overrun America?

Do you know of any ancient trade routes between the Americas and the other lands? This land was kept as a pretty big secret for most of history. Did people find their way over here? Yes, and when they did they tended to prosper. But knowledge of this land was kept from other nations. When I read the Book of Mormon, I expect that the basic land area involved is no bigger than the land of Israel as far as the Nephites are concerned. I would have no idea how widespread the Lamanites would have gone since there is no record of their comings and goings. That, and I was never good at geography :/

@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 According to the LDS church, America was set apart to fulfil God’s righteous purposes. “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord” and was “uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned, until the Lord led to this land from the tower of Babel a colony of people, the Jaredites”. The church also teaches that “the land now known as America would be protected by the Lord from interference from other nations”, that “the Lord kept America “hidden“ and “isolated from the rest of the world” so that the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites could “be kept from all other nations” and “kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune” “that they may possess this land unto themselves” and “possess it unmolested by other people”. The church also teaches that, “If there had been large numbers of other peoples here when the Jaredites came, or when Lehi arrived, certainly the Book of Mormon would have said so.” “In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.” (January 1998 Ensign, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry) “...that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2) “...whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8) "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves." (2 Nephi 1:8-9) “In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country...For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our traveling elders.” (Joseph Smith, The Wentworth Letter, Ensign, July, 2002) “It is worthy of note that this decrease in maritime activity is coincident with the era of the departure of the colonies of Lehi and Mulek for America, and of the promise which the Lord gave to the first named that as long as his seed were faithful in keeping the laws of heaven the land that had been given to them "should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations."*II. Nephi i: 5-11...the fulfillment of the Lord's promise of isolation to the seed of Lehi. And that promise was fulfilled in its completeness, for if the ancients had any knowledge of this continent it became to them a vague tradition and most certainly the people of no other nation reached its shores until long after the descendants of Lehi had turned from the Lord and had fallen right into the lowest depths of savagery and idolatry.” (George Reynolds, The Jaredites, The Juvenile Instructor, vol 28, no 16, August 15, 1892, p 501) “Come down a little later in history, six hundred years before the meridian of time, in the reign of Zedekiah, a body of Israelites was led away by the power of God and by direct intervention of divine agency brought across the great waters and established upon this then unknown continent, isolated from the rest of the world. The purpose of that separation, segregation, isolation and hiding was made plain. It provided a means whereby that part of the House of Israel should serve the Lord their God with purity and sincerity, so long as they would remain obedient.” (James E. Talmage, Ninetieth Annual General Conference, October 1919, p 95) “And behold it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for beyond, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...My brethren and sisters, Lehi foresaw what would be the condition among his children if they would live in harmony with the commandments of the Lord that he had received for his children upon this land - That it should always be for them a land of security, the land of their inheritance, and they should possess it unmolested by other people. But when they should turn away the reverse would be the case. History tells us that they turned away from the God of the land.” (Elder Ray L. Pratt of the First Council of Seventy, Gospel Tidings for the Southland, Millennial Star, April 15, 1926, p 226-227)

@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 “After the Flood and ‘the waters had receded from off the face of this land,’ the Lord declared through His prophet His dedication that this had become a ‘choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve Him who dwell upon the face thereof.’ (Ether 13:) The first attempt to set up a righteous people after the Flood, came when, at Babel (Omni 22), the Lord ‘swore in His wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth’ (ether 1:33), and Jared and his brother, he to whom the Lord said, ‘for never has man believed in me as thou hast’ (Ether 3:15), were guided to these shores. They came with a blessing and an overhanging judgement...Before God’s first effort had come to its final tragedy, He had begun His second...two groups left Jerusalem under the Lord’s direction to escape the fate then pending for Israel and to make a new effort to build a righteous people in the promised land. Of one - that which founded the people of Zarahemla - we know little, save that they were later absorbed by the people of Mosiah (Omni, verses 14-19.) We do not have their records. (Omni, verse 18.) But of the other, the family of Lehi and their descendants, the bulk of the Book of Mormon gives us a full account...Choice peoples have thus been tried twice and each failed to live the law and obey ‘the everlasting decree’ governing this land. The Lord took every precaution to see that nothing might interfere with this posterity of Joseph in working out their God-given destiny and the destiny of America. He provided, and so told Lehi at the very beginning of his settlement, that, ‘...it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for beyond, many nations would overrun the land, and there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8.) The Lord so kept the land for a thousand years after Lehi Landed. He so kept it in His wisdom for another thousand years after the Nephites were destroyed, perhaps to give the Lamanitish branch another chance.” (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr, PROPHECIES, PENALTIES, and BLESSINGS; Concerning America, and Liberty, and its Price, The Improvement Era, vol 43, no 7, July 1940, p 396-441) “‘it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations...These prophecies mention several specific points: first, that the land now known as America would be protected by the Lord from interference from other nations until after the descendants of Lehi had rejected the true Messiah and had dwindled away in unbelief; second, that when the people had become unrighteous, the Lord would bring other nations, led specifically by ‘a man’ on whom his Spirit would work; third, that he would give these gentiles power over the unrighteous Israelites, that he would take away from them the lands which heretofore had been theirs.” (Hyde M. Merrill, Christopher Columbus & The Book of Mormon, The Improvement Era, February 1966, p 97) “this land [America] was deluged by the Flood and left uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned, until the Lord led to this land from the tower of Babel a colony of people, the Jaredites, declaring as he led them that he was bringing them to a “land of promise, . . . choice above all other lands,” and “that whoso should possess this land . . . from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them” (Ether 2:7-8)” (Marion G. Romney, American’s Fate and Ultimate Destiny, May 2 1972) “Holy scripture records that ‘after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.’ (Ether 13:2) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God's decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God's special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord's solemn declaration ringing in their ears: ‘Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.’ (Ether 2:8)” (Jeffrey R. Holland, A Promised Land, Ensign, June 1976) “If there had been large numbers of other peoples here when the Jaredites came, or when Lehi arrived, certainly the Book of Mormon would have said so. The land was reserved for the Lord’s purposes and for His peoples, and the Book of Mormon provides their histories.” (Mark E. Peterson, Children of Promise: The Lamanites: Yesterday & Today, Bookcraft, 1981, p. 46) “For centuries the Lord kept America hidden in the hollow of His hand until the time was right to unveil her for her destiny in the last days. ‘It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations,’ said Lehi, ‘for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance’ (2 Ne. 1:8). In the Lord’s due time His Spirit ‘wrought upon’ Columbus, the pilgrims, the Puritans, and others to come to America.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, Our Divine Constitution, Ensign, November 1987) Contrary to the church’s position that the Americas [and the rest of the world] were unpopulated by humans prior to Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC (Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden, and evolution-) and that the Americas were kept hidden, isolated, and unpopulated by humans after the flood around 2,300 BC - 2400 BC (Old Testament Chronology) until the Jaradites arrived around 2200 BC (Book of Mormon Time Line & Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide), there is tremendous archaeological evidence of human habitation and civilizations in the Americas before, during, and after the recorded history of the BoM from 2200 BC - 400 AD. If the church is correct, how does one account for all the archaeological evidence of human habitation and other civilizations in the Americas that should not exist according to the church and BoM, (First Americans arrived, 28,000 BC, Clovis Culture, 11,000 BC, Huaricanga - Oldest city in the Americas, 3500 BC, Caral Supe, 3000-2500 BC, Olmec, 1200-400 BC, Maya, 500 BC-900 AD, Zapotec, 500 BC-750 AD, Nasca, 1-700 AD, Tiwanaku, 550-950 AD, Wari, 750-1000 AD, Inca, 1250-1532 AD, Mississippian, 1000-1500 AD, Aztec, 1430-1521 AD, etc), and the lack of archaeological evidence for the Jaredite/Lehite/Mulekite civilizations that should exist according to the LDS church and BoM?

@@adamholloway7963 Thank you. I believe you may be taking some liberties in stating “what the church believes“. There have been many and various leaders and church members, groups and publications that possess differing beliefs about the Book of Mormon through time. The church doesn’t take a stance on the location of the book of Mormon at this time let alone some of the other ancillary topics such as we are discussing. I noticed you didn’t cite your quotes in your first paragraph, perhaps due to dubious credibility? I appreciate you putting in quotes from the book of Mormon itself during the latter part of your text. I can believe Those quotes and can imagine how America could have potentially been overrun by Europeans earlier than Columbus, had the Americas been widely known to the old world. This potentially could have set up a system in America much like the old world where religious freedom was oppressed. If there is a God in heaven, who lovingly administers to his children, and I testify that there is, it would be understandable for me that he would wait for his time to make this geography known. Without religious freedom protected by constitutional law, Christ’s restored church May have been frustrated. Regarding pre-Lehite habitation, many serious students of the book of Mormon today understands that this is obvious. It is also obvious that we are dealing with a limited geography model. It is my belief that Lehi’s seed was only a drop in the bucket among the vast inhabitants of the Americas. Kind regards friend

I do not understand your statement. Bones and items from Book of Mormon time periods have been found, there is just no way a present to assign self-determined identity to them.

Mound builders - Haplo group X2a - its present. Not mentioned in this video

mulikites were there when they showed up but the last were northward that met up with people of Limhi

All of the tests on Indians demonstrate "Asiatic." None of the DNA tests on Indians report Middle Eastern peoples = proof the BoM is fiction.

To be fair, nomadic native american groups wouldn't exactly be considered a civilization, and it's entirely too possible that the Nephites had no contact with these groups until after they had already integrated with Laman's family. After which they would be considered Lamanites as a blanket term by the Nephites.

@harry My bit about civilization is purely from the Nephite's perspective as it pertains to the text, I wasn't saying there were no native american civilizations at the time. The Americas are a big place and the Book of Mormon only describes a few interconnected city states. Heck, there could have been many civilizations they came in contact with that were simply omitted from Mornon's abridgement because it was of no spiritual significance. The Lamanites were an otherwise completely native american group who inherited the hatred and jealousy of two lehite families that they intermarried with. The families of Laman and Lemuel (perhaps 12-20 individuals altogether) were a drop in the bucket compared with the preexisting population they joined.

The poor white native Americans were wiped out by white people 😔😔😔

its done quite the opposite for me

This video certainly does not attempt to prove the existence of Lehi and his family. It only points out the pretty huge flaws in what many people think is a 'smoking gun' to the validity of the Book of Mormon. It's true, an unfalsifiable claim may indeed still be wrong, but it doesn't mean it _is_ wrong. The same idea applies to countless religious principles. The claim that God exists would also be an unfalsifiable claim. Or that Moses spoke to a burning bush. Or that Jesus Christ was resurrected. This is a principle that every religion has to grapple with.

@@stelladavis7832 "You mean this video isn't trying to prove Lehi and his family existed?" I believe they really existed, but I do not attempt to use DNA evidence to try to prove they existed, as mentioned in the video. I just consider myself a regular Latter-day Saint. You can call me apologist if you'd like. Is there a chance they did not exist? Let me put it this way: I believe they existed, I don't _know_ they existed. Implicit in faith is the possibility of being in error. That's something that all people of faith have to learn to be OK with. I agree, DNA research can neither conclusively confirm not deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, those that I'd say are biased against our faith have done their best to portray the research as if it does disprove the Book of Mormon. This video was simply meant to counter that assumption with solid scientific principles. Interesting suggestions in your last sentence. That could be really cool.

@@davidsnell2605 I agree David. Applying that to where exactly the Book of Mormon took place is the same dilemma. There are theories you can support different models with, but no way to know definitively, because so much has been lost to time and events. Exactly where it took place, is not as important as that it took place. I am most comfortable however, with the Heartland model myself, when imagining where it took place when reading the Book of Mormon. However, those that imagine it was Central America is fine too. It doesn't effect ones testimony either way.

@@davidsnell2605 here's the crux of my issue. I think it is a best practice to withhold belief until something is demonstrated to be true. And then to only proceed with caution at all times acknowledging you could be wrong. Brushing off criticism does not make an assertion more true. At the core of every religious belief I seem to always find some logical fallacy. The argument from personal experience fallacy Post hoc fallacy Arguments from ignorance or incredulity And others. You're right. These fallacies don't mean a person is wrong. It just means I can't be confident their right. If someone could demonstrate all these claims to be true I would definitely believe it. want believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I am not convinced ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America, refined steel, had massive populations, industrialized the continent, had and used domesticated horses, honeybees, cattle, wheat, etc. Long long before they were introduced to the Americas ( and in the case of steel refined it long before it was refined anywhere else in the world) demonstrated supernatural abilities fundamentally altering the laws of physics. If all this were the case and the evidence supported it to a high degree it would be scientific consensus. But it isn't. Because it doesn't. It may in the future and that would certainly be interesting. But for now I find lehi and his family and the ancient American Jews innocent of having ever existed.

​@@jessibell-pj8dx And I certainly respect your perspective. We can talk about supposed anachronisms (planning on doing a video about these) and other topics forever but you're right in that religion fundamentally cannot prove its tenets to be true. We're circling back around to the age-old battle between belief and knowledge, which, as you said, certainly is the crux of the issue. I believe many things I do not know. You do not believe in anything that cannot be proven to be true. I think there are pros and cons to both philosophies. But either way, I wish you all the best with the philosophy you find most useful.

How many were part of the Jaredites and Mulekites? They seemed to be larger groups and I wonder how diverse these groups were.

Not Hebrew, that cannot be determined. Just DNA from the middle east area as well as Europe. Also when you say Mound builders you should say Algonquian peoples known by archeologists as the Hopewell.

KevlarX2 : Yes, their official name is Hopewell. Yes, Middle East (which includes Hebrew).

We don't know what ancient Hebrew DNA looked like. So we wouldn't be able to say for sure if they were Hebrew or not.

Kat Bos Yes, but that would include Arabs, and there is no evidence to determine which group or subset it would be or from what time

If you are referring to the presence of X2a, you are mistaken. “the presence of X2a in North America has been cited as evidence for two different trans-Atlantic migrations before European contact. First, Meldrum (2009) and Smoot et al. (2010) suggested that X2a is the result of an ancient Hebrew migration from the Middle East to North America approximately 2500 cal yr BP. This hypothesis is undermined, though, by four key findings: X2a is not found in the Middle East, none of the X2 lineages present in the Middle East are immediately ancestral to X2a, the date of coalescence for X2a (14,200-17,000 cal yr BP) significantly precedes the hypothesized migration from the Middle East (Perego et al. 2009), and haplogroup X2a was present in North America far earlier than the hypothesized Hebrew migration, having been found in the 8690-8400 cal yr BP Kennewick Man remains from Washington state (Rasmussen et al. 2015). Thus, X2a does not provide any evidence for an ancient Hebrew migration from the Middle East to North America...Thus, at this time, there is simply no evidence that X2a evolved in the Near East, Europe, or anywhere in West Eurasia...We remain unconvinced by the arguments advanced thus far in favor of a trans-Atlantic migration prior to 1500 cal yr BP or so. As we have discussed, X2a has not been found anywhere in Eurasia, and phylogeography gives us no compelling reason to think it is more likely to come from Europe than from Siberia. Furthermore, analysis of the complete genome of Kennewick Man, who belongs to the most basal lineage of X2a yet identified, gives no indication of recent European ancestry and moves the location of the deepest branch of X2a to the West Coast, consistent with X2a belonging to the same ancestral population as the other founder mitochondrial haplogroups. Nor have any high-resolution studies of genome-wide data from Native American populations yielded any evidence of Pleistocene European ancestry or trans-Atlantic gene flow. It is of course possible that genetic evidence of an ancient trans-Atlantic migration event simply has not been found yet. Should credible evidence of direct gene flow from an ancient Solutrean (or Middle Eastern) population be found within ancient Native American genomes, it would require the field to reassess the “Beringian only” model of prehistoric Native American migration. However, no such evidence has been found, and the Beringian migration model remains the best interpretation of the genetic, archaeological, and paleoclimate data to date.” (Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas? A Critical Re-Evaluation, Jennifer A. Raff & Deborah A. Bolnick, 06 November 2015) If you are referring to other DNA evidence, please provide links to the evidence. Thanks in advance!

No, that is not correct.

Laughable.

​@Joseph the Wanderer You might be right-- but do you care to correct me? I'd love to learn, Mr. Joseph.

nathan jones bald head smoking gun.... 😂

@@TaoT3 i should have put quotation marks around smoking gun but yeah, the only time the mormon idea of native americans makes sense is when they talk about the mound builders civilization and the ledgends about it

Haplo group X2a - near eastern and found plentifully in mound builder bones from bom times. Algonquin tribes still possess it.

Reality has to match the claims. If the universe was eternal then that would disprove that God created the universe. But the universe had a beginning point therefore it shows that God creating the universe is possible. The problem is that Joseph couldn't keep his mouth shut and it exposed him as a fake. I mean you have the book of Abraham papyrus that proves this without a shadow of a doubt. What was in those scrolls have nothing to do with the book of Abraham. Instead they are just common book of the dead burial scrolls. You don't even have fragments that show anything about the book of Abraham. And nothing that matches JS claims has ever been found. If you use the well maybe the actual book of Abraham got burned excuse. It still won't help you because if that is the case the mathematical improbability that happening is insane. But even if you choose to hold on to that. We have Papyrus JSP-1 is the same one that Jospeh Smith has notes on. And nothing of what he said matches with what was on the papyrus. But even if you can ignore that somehow. The book of Abraham is written in a autobiographical style that never existed in the ancient world. Instead it became popular in the time Joseph Smith was alive. Its not that there isn't evidence to show if its true or not. Is that the evidence shows definitively he was a fraud.

@@alejandromartin8347 Oh my gosh you solved the case Sherlock. Joseph would have gotten away with it if it wasnt for you and your meddling dog too! You need to tell me how you did it. Please say you had a time machine, that you had all the original accounts took a picture of the scrolls and heard it from Joseph himself. What? At least tell me you have a published and undisputedly accepted article from a PHD in Egyptology that its wrong? What no again? Oh so you just looked at everything online and just regurgitated everything like some kind of academic bulimic. Oh man and here I thought you had the world's best coffee. Look at all the times you say never, nothing, improbable. People who speak in absolutes like that have no business to deal with an all powerful God and His prophets. They're much too smart for Him. Good luck with the next groundbreaking discovery though. Maybe you'll get someone to mindlessly believe you.

Apologists are just people who defend their own doctrine. Atheists defend their doubt in God and Creationists defend expectations in God. If Atheists and Creationists went back and forth with the promotion of doctrine and objection of evidence then they are both apologizing in their own defense. Everyone that responds to backlash is an Apologist. If you reply to me right now then you are an Apologist. Nobody should be embarrassed in this situation.

@harry good to know, thanks 👍

No.... Joseph has lineage leading back to Joseph though.

Ethiopian Semitic (also Ethio-Semitic, Ethiosemitic, Ethiopic or Abyssinian[1]) is a family of languages spoken in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan. They form the western branch of the South Semitic languages, itself a sub-branch of Semitic, part of the Afroasiatic language family. With 21,811,600 total speakers as of 2007, including around 4,000,000 second language speakers, Amharic is the second-most common language of Ethiopia (after Oromo) and second-most commonly spoken Semitic language in the world (after Arabic).[2][3]. Tigrinya has 7 million speakers and is the most widely spoken language in Eritrea.

Afro- - 1. a combining form 👉🏾of Africa👈🏾: Afro-American; 👉🏾Afro-Asiatic👈🏾; Afro-Latino; Afro-Caribbean. Origin: < Latin Āfr- (stem of Āfer an African) + -o- Also especially before a vowel, Afr-.

John Iler Uh you have to have evidence to make a claim, and there is no evidence. Lack of evidence =/= evidence.

Our critics raised the DNA issue. Not us. If we go to Mesoamerica and take random samples, they can neither prove nor disprove the existence of Nephites. Our critics said DNA disproved the existence of of Nephites and Lamanites. They are wrong. As for evidence, if the Book of Mormon is false, certainly it could be proven false. That it can't is certainly evidence in its favor. Cities, no snow or ice mentioned, cement, roads, Nephite armor, a writing system that starts many sentences with "and it came to pass" (Mayans had a glyph that began sentences with, "and it came to pass."), swords of wood and stone that could cut a horse's head off and many other things (including a city buried in lake as described in the Book of Mormon and presently there is evidence of pre-Columbian horses and barley. You can say there's no evidence ago you want, but those of us who believe in the BofM aren't winging our hands over it. Even the way the Mayans waged war is similar to that of the Nephites. And Dan Peterson has even drawn similarities between the Gadiantons and communist guerrillas, in how they seize and hold territory, and the problems in doing so. Joseph Smith had no knowledge of these things. If he wrote the Book of Mormon, how could he have read all those pages while starring into a dark hat? We don't benefit at all whether you believe us or not. It doesn't benefit us or harm us at all in the eternities. The only one you harm, sir, is yourself. The fact that there's no proof isn't up to us. But you can't say there's no evidence. You're just plain wrong.

If God has created and engineered the body .... He can modify it as He sees fit. Also, we are all living with bodies that are the result of the sin of our ancestors.

Don't believe it because it isn't true.

It’s not true like they’re saying. You have regular dna from both parents, and mitochondrial dna from your mama. Think of it like invisible chains in your mitochondrial dna. Genetics. It gets passed down. They did know about that way back then. They did start changing it in populations. Study Ireland a bit. It connects to all this. Look online with Library of Congress. If you research any religious books, look at it in a scientific/genetic way. When you do that, the books tell you. How do you break the chains? Choice. The universe will take care of the signal/frequency. You can’t keep a bird caged forever. Can you think of anything mainstream that is an effort to get every single person in the whole world in on it? Adds more chains. We’re all dealing with it. We’re all in the same boat. But as a native American, be proud. Your culture and the ways are super important to this world. ❤️

1nefi 12:23 👨🏿‍🦲👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿

These people will believe anything to support an idiotic religion that has no truth claims. They are seriously blinded in they’re sin. They can’t even fathom science bc it doesn’t support anything the bom claims. Like this guys in the video’s seriously delusional.

What's the point of having a prophet if their claims aren't infallible? I thought the purpose of having a prophet was to disambiguate doctrine, and raising speculation is quite counter productive to this. Surely an omniscient deity would have better sense than to allow his ordained spokesperson to unwittingly preach false doctrine.

I would encourage you to read what the Bible says about false gospels. God bless.