Book of Mormon Evidence: Beards
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 апр 2023
- Due to their Israelite heritage, it is likely that males among the people of Lehi and Mulek were able to grow beards. Bearded figures also show up in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican art.
evidencecentral.org/recency/e...
Thank you for joining us at Book of Mormon Central! We hope that you have enjoyed this content. Please consider subscribing to this channel and visiting our website for more content like this: bookofmormoncentral.org/
*Download our free scripture study tool: www.scriptureplus.org/
*Sign up for our weekly emails to receive notifications and more Come, Follow Me resources: forms.aweber.com/form/87/2078...
Check out our “Seeking Jesus” course taught by John Hilton III, visit • Seeking Jesus, Class 6...
Check out this amazing map resource for the bible: scriptures.byu.edu/mapscrip/
*This channel may make use of copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
#BookofMormonCentral #ComeFollowMe #ChurchOfJesusChristOfLatter-daySaints
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
One thing that archeological discovery teaches us again and again is that the history of the Americas is not as well known as some think.
*has beard, approves*
This proves that Santa is real!
beast!!! hahaha love it!
@@dinocollins720 🤘
It's interesting that something as innocuous as beards can be used as a timeline marker.
Another amazing video!!! Thank you
Unique topic. Thanks!
Wow fantastic job on the animation.
Loves my book of Mormon heritage. Loves my book of mormon beard 💙🎅💙
“Book of Mormon beard “😭💀
Why does Book of Mormon central keep protraying these buildings. They are certainly not patterned after the Temple that Nephi taught his people how to build. Maybe they are the Rameumpton that was built. But I doubt that too. Too much trouble for a one day of worship .
I thought all of the righteous people in the Book of Mormon were killed around 400 AD. Doesn't that mean that all of the facially-naked BYU honor code abiding Nephites would have been wiped out, thus only leaving those wicked beard-donning people? I'm confused now... having never shaved my beard completely off since I left BYU, I thought I was the shady fringe member of the ward....
Just because there was a Hebrew tribe there does not mean that it was Lehi. There are twelve tribes and each tribe can have any number of colonies. So now, this does not indicate where the Book of Mormon took place.
And this, folks, is why you cannot build your testimony on archeology. No matter what, there is always an excuse.
But it could indicate that the modern archeology narrative of the Americas is not what we think allowing much room for Book of Mormon events.
So why archeologists are still not convinced about the Book of Mormon
More telling than the location of sculptures and artwork is to unearth the bodies buried in that place and during that time period, before the genetic drift changes would have occurred. Unearth them and behold their beards. There is always the chance they might have shaved the body's facial hair before burial, though.
The answer is because the Book of Mormon didn’t take place in south or Central America. It took place in the heartland of America, the United States. There was only1 Hill Cumorah, in NY. The Hopewell civilization started in 400BC ended in 500AD. Look it up. Google “Letter VII”, a letter Oliver Cowdery wrote stating emphatically where the BOM occurred.
Maybe. None of us know for sure. Sure is interesting to speculate though!
@@loudogg73but we know for sure the hill cumorah is in New York. Thats quite the distance from south america
Now do the heartland model
Better yet the Fantasy Island model
Read D&C 28:8-10 and D&C 32 section heading.
The Bible tells us that Jesus appeared to 500 Believers after his Ressurection.
This was in Israel or America? If it was both, then the number would be higher, right?
But we are told he appeared to 500 people at the same time.
Jesus said that if anyone tells you that they saw him, don't believe it.
Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.
Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
This is the order of appearances after the Resurrection...
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Sure. But this was speaking of one of his appearances after his death and resurrection, not all; there were an unknown number, to different groups of people. These include the visit to two, on thr Road to Emmaus, to Mary alone near the tomb, to the Eleven minus Thomas, then to the Eleven as a whole, etc. The 500 at once report does not preclude the possi ility of other visits.
The book of Mormon has never been proven or validated by historians or archeologist. They have never found one artifact from the Book of Mormons. Face hair does not prove the Book of Mormon, maybe a bone, or a sword found would be a good start.
If you're talking about central america, you'd be right.
But non-LDS archeologists are digging up artifacts with paleo Hebrew writing on them which date to Book of Mormon times around the Great Lakes, as far south as Florida. Joseph Smith said, in no uncertain terms, that the US heartland is where it took place.
Book of Mormon Central America consistently makes very strained connections. The ziggurats they like to depict were built in 900ad. Way after the BoM.
What are you talking about? Leading LDS apologist suggests that instead of horse it was actually a tapir.
@@cognitiveresonance339 sure mormon archeologists are still busy digging up until now and they still continue to update us about the weapons and artifacts they discover. Infact, if you try to visit the LDS museum, you can see full of weapons and artifacts about the lamanites.
“Face hair does not prove the Book of Mormon”
Than how do you explain the prevalence of art featuring facial hair (common around the time it took place mind you) in a society where people don’t have facial hair?
Honestly this just proves your problem isn’t a lack of evidence but a lack of faith.
“Maybe a bone, or a sword found would be a good start”
No it wouldn’t you would just say that’s not good enough too.
This proves nothing. Just because beards were unusual with Indigenous Peoples in the Americas, doesn't mean they were totally non-existent. The fact that there's a few ancient representations of people with beards just mean that some people had them. It's a HUGE leap in logic to go from "they had some basic knowlege of the existence of beards" to "therefore, this means The Book of Mormon is true".
Hence the word "evidence," not "proof" being used.
@@LindyLime Beards are evidence? Shouldn't Mormonism be true, beards or no beards?
@@ts-900 not sure what point you are trying to make. Yes I had a testimony of the Book of Mormon long before learning the info in this particular video. It's a small piece of evidence that supports the book, but obviously far from being absolute proof.
@@LindyLime If they find evidence for the Book of Mormon, I'm fine with that, but it would be a first.
This might be "evidence," but it is not evidence for or against the Book of Mormon.
@@ts-900
they could literally find the name "laman" or "lehi" written somewhere in meso-america and you still wouldn't consider it evidence.
Hmm, the "grasping at straws" argument. Now do the square peg into a round hole argument.
Book of Mormon Central, why not clean these _Comments_ sections of all the snark and anti-LDS sewer sludge? Faithful’s have volunteered to moderate that gunk out, but you have twice blown them off, and the deceit and acidic critics’ comments remain. With all due spew, I wonder what’s wrong with you.
Maybe they are being anti-fascist? It should be a good approach. You let others have Freedom of Speech, let them have their say. Ultimately, debate will help the truth come out.
@@ts-900 No, not at all. It rather gives trolls and moles a playground. Free speech comes with responsibility, and BMC doesn’t need to invite parasites to defecate in their forum. Now go to your room.
@@Glen.Danielsen But I'm not a troll, and I can prove it. Think about this...
Do you want to believe in Mormonism because you BELIEVE it is true, or because it is true?
Aren't I ON YOUR SIDE in this matter? Don't I want Mormonism to be true because it is true, NOT just because you or I believe it is?
Don't you want real evidence like I do?
What must be explained is why the beardless Egyptians also donned fake beards. This is cosmic. Understand the cosmism, and you understand it all.
Sorry, the video is about Nephites in America
😅😂🤣
The book of Mormon was in North America not mesoamerica
It was in both.
Correct
NO it wasn’t
Actually we don't know, but it was one or the other.
@@Angelec99 The great majority of our faithful Latter-day Saint scholars are convinced that the Mesoamerican-South American setting is more plausible. I lean that way too.
So, let's see.
Joseph Smith claimed that Jews came from Israel to settle in the Americas, they built a great civilization, Smith wrote that it's buildings covered the land, and it stretched from one coast to another, and it's inhabitants being described as " numerous almost as the sands of the sea", it was big, very big.
All trace of this great Jewish civilization Smith described, synagogues, towns, cities, agriculture, cemeteries, coins, pottery, writings, and so very much more have done the impossible, vanished without archeological, DNA, trace.
Yet Mormon researchers will cling to straws by seeing some possible significance in styles of men's facial hair to support their churche's founder.
No one but Mormons are, or ever have, looked for or found, credible evidence to show that the book of Mormon is anything other than a work of fiction.
The Mormon church knows full well that it's whole credibility and authority claims hang on Joseph Smith's BOM being factual history, so it dogedly and determidly defends it come what may.
The LDS church has no official position on where the BOM lands even are, they are as in the dark as the rest of the world, yet this book has been elevated to be the keystone of their faith.
Joseph Smith called it the most correct book on earth, a new revelation from God himself to all mankind.
The overwhelming lack of credible evidence Rather points to it being perhaps the most incorrect book on earth that claims to be historically accurate.
Kind regards to all.
...but BEARDS!
That was a weak attempt. We keep trying to force feed Meso America to the Latter Day Saints.
That’s interesting, but just proving that some statues had beards does not make of much evidence.
Your conclusions are based on wrong premises, the ones that comes from the 2 cumorah hills theory, which is a poor theory.
Facial hair…really? Wtf
All the credibility of the old 1970 Bermuda Triangle books
Any scientist will tell you that trates doesn't change that fast. So nice try...
Native Americans are of East Asian and Siberian decent…not Israelite. A minority of Ancient East Asians were able to grow beards.
There's some sciencey DNA stuff that suggests that, but the technology's not good enough yet to say for sure.
@@Govthefox it’s not just “sciencey DNA stuff,” it’s supported by archeology, geology, anthropology, sociology, biology, migration studies, etc.
@@harryhenderson2479 Thank you for the correction. But those are still all fields that are still way too undeveloped to make a confident claim about where all native Americans came from.
@@Govthefox I think the evidence is convincing enough to make a confident claim re: the ancestry of Native Americans, yes. Open to new evidence that counters the claim though.
@@harryhenderson2479 You're not gonna make it far in life if your argument is just, "yeah, but I think my thing is right anyway."