Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion the location designated by God (The Old Testament is filled with explicit references to God choosing Jerusalem Zion as the place where "His name would dwell" in the temple: for example, 1 gseb books std 11 commerce Kings.
Could it be because modern Mitochondrial DNA studies support the view that the principal ancestors of Native Americans are Asiatic people, not the American Indians?
Good works are a result, not the basis, of a right relationship with God (Ephesians 2:10).
The second migration to the Americas left Jerusalem during the sixth century.C.This statement brings up several questions.The Book of Mormon explores this very issue.The Bible came first, not the Book of Mormon.This is a conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence that exists.If the Bible truly does contain the "fulness of the everlasting gospel then why is the Book of Mormon even necessary?
125-30, the Book of Mormon is wholly lacking in any such evidences of ancient origin.
They'll say something like "The Book of Mormon helps us interpret the Bible" or "The Book of Mormon completes the Bible." But behind the rhetoric is a basic mistrust of the Bible.
If the Mormon Church claims to be the restoration of the gospel, then what, exactly, needed to be restored?
So, is the Book of Mormon comparable to the Bible?
For another resource on this subject and many others, see Millard.click here for more information on this video.From the introduction page of The Book of Mormon.This is not just our opinion.For further reading regarding infancy and salvation, see the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry's article on the subject.If this is the case, then this would resolve the apparent contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon regarding what happened at the time of Christ's death, for we would have 3 hours of darkness in Israel and 3 days of darkness.