Welcome to Tuscoro.com

Read More......


Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Following the path of the Ark of the Covenant PART THREE

Suggestive and Compelling Archeologic Evidence

Some time ago I wrote two articles one called The Nine Commandments of the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone and a following article called the Puerco River Ark of the Covenant, I had thought of just including the latter but the first of these two lends credence to the latter, perhaps you will see it and perhaps you won’t, but my reasoning for pointing this out is to simply say, regardless of what I have written in the articles, my belief today is that the Los Lunas Stone was carved by cultures who visited the Americas around 775-1050 AD, NOT by the earliest Native Americans. The earliest likelihood in which it could have been carved is about 100 BC, but I lean towards a much later date. Here are the two articles.

The Nine Commandments
and the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone

Historically we have always been taught of the Ten Commandments in almost every work pertaining to the subject reference is always made as “the Ten Commandments,” but do we really have anything from a credible source that says specifically how many commandments were given on the two tablets? Only 3 times in the King James Bible does it say specifically Ten Commandments? Although there are hundreds of Commandments we will only focus on the supposed Ten.

In looking at the accepted version of Ten Commandments we have;

Exodus 20:1-17
1  AND God spake all these words, saying,
2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the saboth day, to keep it holy
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day [is] the 526rayish of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the 526rayish day, and hallowed it.
12  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour’s.

Seems pretty cut and dry doesn’t it? In the Catholic Bible they have simply removed the second commandment for reasons so very obvious of which is part of the first, and divided the 10th commandment to keep the appearance of the traditional ten. But let’s look at it from another perspective in which does not take away from the content or meaning. Let’s look at this from the perspective of sin. What is the sin associated with the Commandment?

# 1, Sin, Worship of another God other than THEE God.
#2, The sin is the same as #1, be it a false God, wrong God or one made with our hands it is the same and therefore constitutes One commandment given in 3 parts.
# 3 Sin, Taking the Lords Name in Vain. Not cursing which is one of the dumbest thing I have heard, but using the Lords name to get gain.
# 4. Sin, Not Remembering the Sabbath.
# 5 Sin, Not glorifying thy Father and thy Mother ABOVE.
#6 Sin, Shedding of “Innocent” blood.
#7 Sin, Adultery, Giving your love to another who has no right to it, it has nothing to do with sex.
#8 Sin, Stealing, taking what does not belong to you.
#9 Sin, Bearing False witness of which you were no witness to.
#10 Sin, Coveting that which does not belong to you, which is given in 2 parts.

Number one and two are part of the same commandment.  Having no other God before him includes every form of God out there whether false, graven image, or the wrong God.

I have heard some argue that they are two separate commandments because each starts with “Thou Shalt Not” and if this is the case are we saying Verse 5 above is a new and separate commandment? Are we saying those which do not have “Thou Shalt Not” preceding them are not commandments? It is suspect by me that the first Commandment is a creation of man long ago as the 2nd covers the same, and the purpose of this creation was to eventually eliminate the second part to justify themselves and leaving the first in its place.

Now I don’t know what school you went to, But I was taught that Jesus Christ is a God, part of the Godhead, and that our Father put him before himself, of his own doing, as a Savior to the world who agreed to give the glory to his Father, and that we do, be it by prayer, ordinances, covenants etc, done in the name of Jesus Christ. If this isn’t putting a God Before God the Father I don’t know what is, so is our Father a Hypocrite or is it more likely that someone didn’t think this through? If the first commandment as we know it were from God, what Gods was he referring to?

We know there are other Gods out there who have their own creations but we have never been taught of them other than their existence or come to know any of them in any way whatsoever, and if you made the choice to worship one of these Gods you know nothing about, do you think they would in anyway acknowledge you, being a true God? So if our God is the creator of this so called first commandment, what would he have meant? Well the only Gods left are false Gods, creations of our minds and are usually manifest by those who create them in the form of Statues, Idols and the creations of their hands and is this not covered in what we know as the second commandment? The first commandment is pointless unless you needed a scapegoat. What we know as the first commandment is a fabrication of man in ancient times; it is not needed and does not change the fact that we should have no other false God before him or what we know as the Trinity.

There are only nine commandments and why have I brought this up? The reason is to give credibility to the Los Lunas Stone in the following section in that it does not have mistakes as so many supposed experts and students of Hebrew have said, it is THEM who is in error and mistaken not the scribe of the stone and I intend to show you this is true which hopefully in the end we will have just one more evidence of ancient Hebrew in the Western regions and to show that someone in the past knew what the scholars of today do not. And there is another reason which will shortly come, the Puerco River Glyph.

The Los Lunas Stone

Los Lunas Stone as it appeared before someone
recently got offended

The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is said to have been originally discovered in the 1880’s but not officially until it was shown to Frank C Hibben an archaeologist and anthropologist of New Mexico, the very archaeologist who wrote the document called Frozen Muck which I included in the book Nephite North. It is said that it was heavily covered in Lichen and patina when Hibben first saw it; many have discredited the find as a hoax of course because of things such as the repeated cleaning of it and re scratching of the characters and chalking for photos, but more so because of the so called Mistakes and errors found within the text that according to the so called experts, would not have been made. I would agree 100% that a Levitical Scribe or a scribe with knowledge of the Paleo Hebrew would not have made the so called mistakes and errors pointed out. The difference is, I don’t think the scribe made any mistake and it is those who think they have a clear understanding of the Paleo Hebrew or Hebrew who is in error, and those who attempted to change the content.

“The archaeologist Ken Feder points out that “the flat face of the stone shows a very sharp, crisp inscription...”. His main concern however is the lack of any archaeological context. He argues that to get to the location of the stone would have required whoever inscribed it to have “stopped along the way. Encamped, eaten food, broken things, disposed of trash, performed rituals, and so on. And those actions should have left a trail of physical archaeological evidence across the greater American Southwest, discovery of which would undeniably prove the existence of foreigners in New Mexico in antiquity with a demonstrably ancient Hebrew material culture...” and states that “There are no pre-Columbian ancient Hebrew settlements, no sites containing the everyday detritus of a band of ancient Hebrews, nothing that even a cursory knowledge of how the archaeological record forms would demand there would be. From an archaeological standpoint, that’s plainly impossible.”

Wow, I couldn’t even begin to show the blindness of this man, No Hebrew settlements? Does this man read or just listen to all he was taught by his peers? So who were these Indians with more knowledge of the Hebrew ways than anyone ever expected and documented by dozens of the earliest explorers long before Feder’s G G Great Grand Father was even a thought. Encamped, eaten food, etc…? And of the 50 million acres surrounding the site Mr. Feder has personally search all of it? Didn’t anyone show him the ruins on the hill above? If this was the landing place of a certain band of Hebrews by a sea faring ship how are we going to find their trash along the way? What kind of trash should we be looking for? Evian plastic bottles? Forgive me but, Ignorance is no proof of Intelligence…

One only need take a close look to see that whoever the scribe was, he had knowledge that the supposed experts of today do not have. For this reason I am going to talk about the supposed commandment # 5 Thou Shalt Honor thy Mother and Father. In a video that my good friend Alan sent to me, concerning the Los Lunas stone, a student of Hebrew points out a few “mistakes” according to him but never really expounds upon what exactly the mistake is except for the 5th commandment. When he is asked what it actually says he struggles trying to tell us what it Should say until the host of the video impatiently asks him again, specifically what it actually says. With this the student of Hebrew again struggles and says, it says Honor thy Father and thy Mother…. ABOVE!

When I heard this I knew that our understanding of the scriptures for near 2000 years is what is in error. At this time I would point out one other mistake which has existed for a very long time, the words are not Honor your, it is Glorify you. In other words, YOU glorify Father and Mother above. Why do men always suppose they know more about the ancient writings than those who wrote them? Since when would our Father instruct us to give glory to another man, before God? Does this not violate the 1st commandment? It is what it is…. Now the problem is, who is our Mother above, and did the ancients know her? Why don’t we? The reasons I have been given my whole life just make no sense, and I am sure that many will come to my rescue to save me from my fallen state and explain to me what the scripture “really mean.

My friend and I talked about this for some time, the question was brought, if the scripture meant honor OR glorify thy earthly father and mother then we have a problem. Now my Father has also instructed me by way of commandment to forsake ALL evil, so, hypothetically speaking if my earthly father was a foul dishonest man, a thief, a murderer and oppressor of the poor and the week, and I did not honor him because of his evils, am I now guilty of the sin of Commandment #5? I don’t think so. And if I did Honor or Glorify him, in other words, worship him or give glory to him, am I now guilty of commandment #1?  In looking at the meaning of the word Honor or Glorify among the many implicating words which describe it, is to Worship. Although this seemed very convincing, it wasn’t completed for me until I stumbled upon a couple of scriptures from the lips of Christ himself that I knew the ancient scribe who carved the Los Lunas Stone was not only authentic, but knew more about Paleo Hebrew and his scriptures than the so called experts of today.

In the following Jesus shows the Pharisees and scribes the error of their ways without telling them what it actually means. He shows them by their own understanding they contradict themselves but it is the fact that Jesus himself says in the following, God Commanded.

Matthew 15:4
 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Interestingly enough the Greek translation for the above does not say Honor thy father and mother, it says, Be valuing THE Father and Mother. And again he says the same basic thing in Mark 7:10, the point being, what kind of God would condemn me to death for worshiping a false God, putting another God before him? What kind of God would put me to death for cursing an earthly father or mother whether I had reason or not? I know the answer, do you? This doesn’t sound like a God I want to worship.

God is a title, not a name, and my God encompasses my Father and Mother above and including my Lord and Savior. I have no doubt that My Father above wants me to Honor him, and glorify him as in worship, and my Mother in Heaven also who are among the only ones who are “Honorable” PERIOD. Are we here to give glory to our earthly parents?

The scribe who wrote the inscription of the Los Lunas Panel knew exactly what he wrote. Mistakes are made with pens and by the quick action of them, and lack of knowledge, the mistakes the scribe is accused of simply do not occur, do they mean for me to believe the scribe carved the entire row of characters chiseling away stepping back and blowing off the dust and then said OOPS?..  I don’t think so. However I could admit the scribe could have made one mistake in that he began to write the second part of the first commandment, or was it a mistake? And the scribe supposedly had to “Insert” the missing potion between the first and second line of the inscription? Hmmm, something stinks here…

It is said that the earliest known use of an insertion mark or caret is 1681, my question is, why didn’t anyone question the one found in 1681? Is its use in the Los Lunas stone evidence of the very earliest known use of the Caret? Evidence of a fraud, or evidence of someone in recent years attempting to change what an original inscription said because it did not fit their agenda or to render it a hoax and not understanding that the use of the Caret is likely a modern invention?  Is it possible that “Thou Shalt have no other God before me” was added in at a modern date as it was not necessary to even be a part of the commandment  as the commandment would have been complete without it. It is my opinion that the second line was added by someone in modern times, likely some Spaniard of the Catholic Faith who adhered to words of an altered Bible.

If you look close at the method of application of the glyphs there is a difference in style for a lack of better words, between the 2nd line and the rest of the panel, look closely at the Lamed symbol. In the entire panel all of the Lamed symbols either join at the point of the vertical and horizontal line, or a small gap is left BELOW the vertical line and ABOVE the horizontal. In the second line suspect of being added at a more modern date, the gap is not below the vertical line, but to the side in two of the three occurrences. This difference implies a different author. Now why would someone do this? Interestingly enough two of the mistakes mentioned would have been done by the author of the added line. Another interesting observance is, that some time in 2007, someone visited the site with a portable grinder and removed the first line, why only the first line? I hate to point this out to those responsible but isn’t this like tearing the pages from the scriptures so that it no longer applies? Regardless, it did not change a thing. One often meets their destiny on the road they take to avoid it.

It is my opinion due to common sense, if I approached a rock face with the intent to scribe something as important as the commandments and not knowing how exactly it was going to fit on the rock, I would not just sit down and start chiseling away. I would however plan what I was going to do and I would grab some charcoal from one of those nonexistent Hebrew debris piles, and lay the whole thing out first, then chisel the lines, do you think the scribe might have noticed mistakes if there were any? The following picture is what I truly believe the panel once looked like before someone got to it in the ancient past and took offense because it did not matched their altered Bible, or saw the threat of exposing a little plot; Manifest Destiny takes upon new meaning.

The Los Lunas Stone BEFORE anyone in the past got offended

I am Jehovah Elohim your God who has brought you out of the land of Egypt from the house of slaves. (1) You shall not make idols. (2) You shall not use the name Jehovah in vein. (3) Remember the day of the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
(4) Honor Father and Mother above that your days will be long on the earth that Jehovah Elohim your God has given you. (5) You must not murder, (6) you must not commit adultery, (7) you must not steal, (8) you must not give false testimony, (9) you must not covet your neighbors wife, nor that which he has.

Who would know more about the message inscribed on the stone? An ancient scribe or today’s so called experts? It is because of the things described previously that tells me this panel was inscribed some time prior to the creation of Catholicism or even possibly BC times. Was there a 10th Commandment? We may never know but from the perspective of those who inscribed the Los Lunas stone, there were 9, interestingly enough, according to those who inscribed the stone in the next chapter, there were only 9 as well.

It says what it says, and means what it means; it is what it is… It was because of the following chapter that caused me to reevaluate the Los Lunas Stone. The possibilities are many, but I guess no one is willing to look at the other possible perspectives. If there are mistakes in the Los Lunas inscription, it is from modern man, just my two cents. Continued in...

Following the path of the Ark of the Covenant PART TWO

Testimony of  ARK by Various Idigenous tribes

From Adair’s “History of the American Indians” published in London 1775.

Found in the pages of Peruvian Antiquities by Mariano Eduardo de Rivero y Ustáriz translated to English in 1853 we find on pages 9-10,

But that which most tends to fortify the opinion as to the Hebrew origin of the American tribes, is a species of ark, seemingly like that of the Old Testament; this the Indians take with them to war ; it is never permitted to touch the ground, but, rests upon stones or pieces of wood, it being deemed sacrilegious and unlawful to open it or look into it. The American priests scrupulously guard their sanctuary, and the High Priest carries on his breast a white shell adorned with precious stones, which recalls the Urim of the Jewish High Priest : of whom we are also reminded by a band of white plumes on his forehead.
Whether this is the actual Ark or some species of Ark we cannot know at this time, but we can plainly see that they had knowledge of it. Could the following be another species of Ark? Speaking of the Algonquin tribes and those of the west we have; The History of Ancient America. George Jones 1843, pages 13-15
The Northern Aborigines have a traditional knowledge of the Deluge and the Dove of peace, which to them under the name of the medicine, or mystery bird, is sacred from the arrow of the hunter. They have their Ark of Covenant, in which is deposited some mystery, seen only by the priests of the Tribe,—it is said to be a shell, and supposed to give out oracular sounds; this is in analogy to the Book of the Laws placed in the Ark of Covenant by MOSES, preceding his death on Mount Nebo,—the oracular wisdom of which has guided civilization to this day. The ark is never suffered to touch the earth, but is always raised on a stand of wood or stone; it is invariably carried by a Tribe when they march to battle,—a similitude is here to JOSHUA at the siege of Jericho. When it is in their peaceful encampment, it is surrounded by twelve stones, indicative of the original number of the Tribes of their ancestors;—this is strictly in analogy with the twelve statues (probably rude blocks of stone) erected by MOSES around the Altar of the Covenant to personify the twelve tribes of Israel. JOSHUA, also, after the passage of the Jordan, erected twelve stones in his encampment at Gilgal, and the same number in the river at the place of the passage. They select their medicine men (i. e. priests or prophets) from among a portion of the tribe not warriors; here is the custom of the Levites, or descendants of AARON being in the sacred office of priesthood, for with the Israelites they were not to be taken from the ranks of the soldiery. These Aborigines dwell in booths, as when brought out of the land of Egypt, for they are still wanderers. [Lev. xxiii.] They offer a flesh, or burnt-offering from the chase, which is first cast into the flames, before even a starving family may eat. They have their corn and harvest feasts; also, one in observance of every new moon,—another in festivity of the first-fruits,—
and the great feast in direct analogy with the Hebrew Passover, even to the blood being stained upon the posts and lintels, and the mingling of the most bitter herbs! Then their fastings and purifications are practiced with the greatest severity. The breastplate, or ornament worn by their religious prophets, containing twelve shells, or stones of value, is in direct imitation of the ancient Pectoral worn by the Hebrew high priest, and which contained twelve precious stones, inscribed with the names of all the twelve original tribes of Israel. They have their cities of refuge, or huts of safety, where the most deadly foe dare not enter for his victim. They never violate a female captive, and upon the Hebrew principle, that their blood shall not be contaminated by interunion;—this has been strictly followed in all their wars with the Europeans. They also reject the savage practice of civilization upon the lofty principle of manly virtue!
It would seem that these people certainly had knowledge of the Ark, the way of the Israelites and all that pertained to them. How is it that these writers from the 1700’s and 1800’s seem to have had this information and it appears that today’s scholars don’t? I have never seen these quotes in modern books (with the exception of Dewey Farnsworth’s book).

From Hewett Edgar Lee’s book Chaco Canyon and its Monuments 1936
The Ark of the Covenant appears to have been known. On the excellent authority of Adair, Long and Noab, American Historians and ethnologists, we are informed that the western tribes of the North American Indians kept a holy chest, or ark, which they were wont to carry to the battle field when hard pressed by their enemies. Long says: This ark was placed on a sort of frame carried on men’s shoulders, and was not allowed to touch the ground. To uncover it was strictly forbidden. Three men who, were of curiosity attempted to examine its contents, were stuck blind on the spot.
Articles such as this were abundant in the early writings of this nation, it wasn’t until the formation of Smithsonian that scholars began to discredit the early writers and quit talking about the Ark along with the idea that a majority of the early writers who were WITH the Native people, mingled with them, spoke to them and made a record of their narratives were convinced and believed without a doubt that the Native American people were of Jewish decent. Today, the DNA research in and around the great lakes region and the Mississippi Valley, home of the mound builders, the Adena Culture and Hopewell Culture as the academics have named them, confirms this.

This is no longer a theory people, it is a known fact. Continued in....

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Following the path of the Ark of the Covenant PART ONE

Introduction: A new perspective...

Of all the artifacts that are thought to exist or of those found over time, there is none greater than that of the Ark or the Covenant.  It is the greatest prize of the archaeological world even with those who do not believe in the very writings which give testimony of it. Whenever a topic of investigation comes to me, I always want to see what the orthodox belief is, and in these times, the best way is to see what the all-knowing WIKI writers are saying… I am absolutely surprised that the word “Mythical” does not appear a dozen times or more in the wiki write-up. In the Wiki ditty you will find some of the basics concerning the Ark, and a majority of the theories as to where it may have disappeared to which are full of conjecture and mis-information.

The first photo found in the WIKI article shows a painting from 1900, a rendition depicting Moses and Joshua “bowing” before the Ark of the Covenant. The Artist I suppose just didn’t understand that Moses and Joshua would NEVER bow in worship of or to an inanimate object, not even the ark, to do so would be in violation of the FIRST of the NINE Commandments, “Ye shall not make Idols” but the Ark was not built to serve as an Idol, so why do men make it such?

The first thing to overcome if you really want truth, is to overcome and accept the fact that you have been taught to believe, taught to believe a certain way or even behave in a particular manner. Why are so many concern with what the rest of the world is believing, thinking or doing? The majority of car or truck owners buy Ford, I personally wouldn’t have one, sorry Ford owners, but I am an old school mechanic, I wouldn’t have one if I could avoid it. Another example of being taught to behave a certain way is the majority of men who cannot live without their football, baseball or basketball. Don’t get me wrong, I use to love participating in the sports, but I just don’t understand the idea of watching it and not being a part, it is like watching someone buy a Ford.

When searching for truth, one has to consider all possibilities, many would disregard certain sources just because of what they have been taught to believe.
Although I do not adhere to any current orthodox religious belief system, I consider them all because they had to start somewhere but I know without a doubt that each has been changed and tailored to satisfy the weakness of men, many of them bear little resemblance to what they began as and others are full of justifications as to why these changes are made even though it is a complete contradiction to the core belief! Anyway… maybe some of you will understand why I have brought this up.

Of all the theories regarding the Ark of the Covenant, ideas based upon conjecture, self-appointed, speculation and/or just plain poor research, a majority derive at their conclusions with or including Ignorance. Some things just don’t fit into their taught belief system, religious or academic, and without any thought it is cast out.

I am going to tell you another hypothesis of the Ark of the Covenant, one that no matter what I say, many will not consider, and frankly I don’t care.
It would seem almost everyone is in agreement that the Ark was in Jerusalem around 600 BC, a majority would also agree that it just disappeared and often blamed upon the events of 587 BC when the Babylonians laid waste to Jerusalem, as a result it is speculated that the Ark was carried away by the Babylonians, I mean, where else could it have gone?  One source even states that at the same time prior to this conquest, one of their great prophets and his family just one day up and disappeared, he is identified by this source as Lehi of Beit Lehi. I don’t know how much more of a hint the historians would need. This event of the destruction of Jerusalem is where all speculations and conjecture begins. However, this hypothesis to follow involves a source which comes from a certain belief system, I strongly consider this written source not because I was taught to believe, but because of waking up and realizing many years ago that I too was taught to believe, this source material was my primary focus, with only an agenda to prove it or disprove it, I only wanted the truth, in short I’ve done the time, so with this said, let me continue.

There is a source few will consider and many will never consider and that is their right within their agency, that source is none other than what is called the book of Mormon. Within this book which is a plausible history, is a story which is told that parallels evidences being found today, just as the plausible history of the Bible. 

In this book is the story which is the beginning and the basis of the entire history which follows it. This departing from Jerusalem can be read in 1st Nephi Chapter 1-4 of the Book of Mormon.

When Lehi was instructed to leave Jerusalem he was told to go to Laban, a powerful man in the city, who was in possession of what is termed as “the Brass Plates.” I don’t think anyone with knowledge would argue that the Brass Plates are the first five books of Moses. I think the reason this has gone unseen for so long is due to this name given by another people to a book mentioned in the other plausible history, the Bible. This book was called The Book of the Law of Moses which is also the first 5 books of Moses also known as the Torah. What I am suggesting is that the Brass Plates of the Mormon book and the Book of the Law of the Bible are the same book. Moses was instructed to put the “testimony” or book of the Law in the Ark and nowhere have I found where in anyone was instructed to separate the book from the Ark.

Exodus Chapter 25 16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.
And later after Moses writes the Testimony of Law…
Deuteronomy 31:9
9 ¶ And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.
Deuteronomy 31:25-26
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

If the Brass Plates were in fact the same as the testimony or Book of the Law which was placed in the Ark, when Nephi and his brother went to get the Brass Plates they would have had to have been taken out of the Ark of the Covenant. In reading of the event you will notice that Laban, the possessor of the Plates, does not go to get the plates himself, but he sends his servant Zoram whom I would suspect was of Levitical decent.

If Nephi was instructed to obtain the plates to be taken to the Promised land for their benefit and the benefit of their posterity, why would they leave the Ark behind, KNOWING well and good that its final purpose will be here upon this land at the final gathering of Israel?

Did the Ark travel to this continent with Lehi and his sons? Let’s look a little further into the text of this plausible history.

Without checking, Lehi with his people had been here for about 35-37 years when Nephi received notice that his enemy the Lamanites were plotting to kill him. He was told to gather in his families and belongings and leave the place they were in the middle of the night. They traveled many days Northward, a journey which was about 360 miles and eventually stopped at the place that that would become the city of Nephi which today,  is where the Newark earthworks, ruins or mounds are found. They had not been there long and they built a temple for a specific purpose.

12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the aplates of brass; and also the bball, or ccompass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land.

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Now I do not know how many bible thumpers we have out there, but each of them should know one of the main reasons the Temple of Solomon was built. It was primarily built to house the Ark of the Covenant and my first question after reading the contents of 2nd Nephi chapter 5 is, why would they do this if they did not have the Ark? After this event the Mormon scriptures seem to go silent as to where the Brass plates have gone.

One of the greatest archaeologic hoaxes? But who got hoaxed?
From the all knowing WIKI:

In October 1890, James O. Scotford of Edmore, Michigan, claimed that he had found a number of artifacts, including a clay cup with strange symbols and carved tablets, with symbols that looked vaguely hieroglyphic. The find attracted interest and eager looters arrived to look for more artifacts. Many more elaborate discoveries were made in the area around Wyman in Montcalm County, Michigan following Scotford's original discovery. Scotford was a well-known digger and sign painter in the area of Wyman. He and his company "would dig until they located an artifact, and then the dignitaries who sponsored the work were invited to remove that artifact". Within the first year of Scotford's initial discovery a syndicate was formed in Montcalm County of interested parties. The syndicate purchased many of the artifacts and attempted to exploit the finds financially for the region.

By 1907, Scotford joined forces with Daniel E. Soper, former Michigan Secretary of State, and together they presented thousands of objects made of various materials, supposedly found in 16 counties across Michigan. Soper had resigned as Secretary of State for the State of Michigan after being accused of embezzlement. The objects included coins, pipes, boxes, figurines and cuneiform tablets that depicted various biblical scenes, including Moses handing out the tablets of the Ten Commandments. On November 14, 1907, the Detroit News reported that Soper and Scotford were selling copper crowns they had supposedly found on heads of prehistoric kings, and copies of Noah's diary. Scotford often arranged for a local person to witness him "unearthing" the objects.

Scotford and Soper had many trusting customers who strongly believed in the relics. In 1911, one John A. Russell published a pamphlet, "Prehistoric discoveries in Wayne County, Michigan," in which he argued for their authenticity. James Savage, former pastor of the Most Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Detroit, bought 40 of the objects. Savage believed them to be "remains relevant to the descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel," and continued to believe in the relics until his death.

It is said the artifacts were immediately deemed as a hoax by archaeologists and historians. Later it would seem that the artifacts found their way to James Talmage in about 1909 and in 1911, 3 years later he published a book rendering them to be a fraud. To this day I would like to know how Mr. Talmage was qualified to render 30,000 artifacts found over a period of nearly 300 years from over 1100 mounds as fake or was it his intent to render them as a fraud for another purpose? These were some very ambitious hoaxers indeed. What you will find on the internet today is a one sided version of the story.

It has also been reported: Latest studies of professor of anthropology Richard B. Stamps of the Michigan Historical Museum indicate that the artifacts were made with contemporary tools. My question would be: Contemporary? as in the technology has somehow changed since the time the chisels which were also found among the artifacts were made and those of today? The following image is one of the tablets found that was among the Michigan Tablets. Also is a picture of brass or copper Contemporary Tools some of many which was among the artifacts. As it would seem, no one was trying to hide the fact that these were made with “Contemporary tools.”

Ark of the Covenant?
(Notice the Modern Archaeologist Tag at the bottom on a fake artifact yet)

The next image is the reverse side of the tablet shown above.

A Temple in the manner of  Solomon’s?

Interestingly enough, a very skeptical Ute friend of mine (not only skeptical of certain artifacts but also of the whole Mormon story), once asked me if I had ever wondered why he never gave me any criticisms towards these artifacts which he was accustomed to doing in several other cases. I responded with, well, now that you mentioned it, why haven’t you? Then he told me a story of when he was in his younger years he happened upon a cave somewhere in south Ouray Utah and in it he found several stones bearing the exact same inscriptions found upon the Michigan artifacts, the Burrows Stones and Brewers find in Manti Utah. Upon showing a few of them that he brought to his Grandfather his Grandfather slapped them out of his hands and scolded him and telling him to return them and never go there again! It is the cave of death! Those Hoaxers were indeed very, very busy. I knew this man very well and he was no liar.

In the next photo one might want to ask, “If these Hoaxers made these things with Contemporary tools, why would these hoaxers also manufacture ancient tools?”

Like I said, over 30,000 artifacts! Written off as a hoax, why? A few reasons as I see it, One, the whole idea lends credence to the existence of a God and is a strong evidence against the theory of Evil-ution and from certain people of the Neil Maxwell Institute, it is evidence which is STRONGLY in opposition of their Mesoamerican theory. The short of it is, PRIDE.

But the strongest reasons I see as to why so much effort was placed in rendering these artifacts as a hoax is, ONE: If these artifacts were deemed as authentic, this would give immense credibility to the Mormon story, and we just can’t have that. TWO: the most plausible reason for me is, by this time in 1890 to 1910, it was WELL known the power of Smithsonian to just make thing disappear, anything lending credence to a GOD or heaven forbid, the Mormons… would just disappear. If the Mormons sent a representative to definitively express that they too felt the artifacts were a hoax, it would saved them from being wisped away, hidden from all or even being destroyed.

As far as I am concerned what happens with these artifacts over the next 80 some odd years the handling of them etc… shows that they were much more than fake artifacts. If they were in fact fake, why didn’t they just throw them away?

Ancient Contemporary tools? Someone please show me the differences in my sledge hammer and chisel and these tools?

After James Savage died in 1927 he bequeathed his collection of the relics to the University of Notre Dame. While at Notre Dame, the relics sat dormant until the 1960s when Milton R. Hunter, president of the New World Archaeological Foundation, the research institute of the Mormon Church, uncovered the relics. Hunter spent the rest of his life attempting to use the relics to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Hunter connected the relics to the "Michigan Mound Builders," which he deemed to be the Nephites from the Book of Mormon. Hunter's rhetoric and work with the Michigan Relics perpetuated pseudoarchaeology in religion, with efforts to prove pre-Columbian contact and the myth of the mound builders. Notre Dame gave Hunter the collection in the 1960s and before his death in 1975 he deeded the collection to the LDS Church. Following Hunter's death, the Church kept the collection in their museum in Salt Lake City, Utah for decades. In 2001, the Church had the relics examined by Professor of Anthropology Richard B. Stamps, of Oakland University and found that the artifacts were made with contemporary tools.

There is so much that you have not been told about these incredible finds of the Michigan Collection. The purpose of the foregoing in case you did not notice, if these artifacts are authentic, where did these mound builders ever see a rendition of the Ark of the Covenant and supposed rendition of a Temple like unto Solomon’s? Continued in....