LDS... just for fun....

[Serapha]

Hi there!



When you read the book of mormon and when you envision what the trip was like for Lehi's family who were rich and left their wealth behind to follow God's command...


Is this what you envision?

Living in a 250-lb open-air tent, sleeping in a rug at night, everyone eating out of one dish?

Take a close look at these people, and tell me what you feel about the lifestyle.



I'll let you in on a little secret and I hear some of your comments. What do you see in the picture?

~serapha~

 

[A New Dawn]

Hi there!



When you read the book of mormon and when you envision what the trip was like for Lehi's family who were rich and left their wealth behind to follow God's command...

Is this what you envision?

Living in a 250-lb open-air tent, sleeping in a rug at night, everyone eating out of one dish?

Take a close look at these people, and tell me what you feel about the lifestyle.

I'll let you in on a little secret and I hear some of your comments. What do you see in the picture?

~serapha~

I'm not LDS, but I'll jump in.

I think of a group of people who would have rather stayed home in their nice comfortable surroundings, but who went along with what the Lord advised because more than one of them received the testimony (or prophecy, whichever it is considered to be), and knew that the Lord delivers on His promises.

I think of the hardships they encountered along the way. The anger of some for being forced to leave their (probably) luxurious surroundings and having to give up their wealth, the having to totally rely on living hand to mouth, and other things that none of them had ever done before. The having to endure.

I never really pictured in my mind what the tents would look like, but that is probably what I would picture. I know that the tents one saw in the movie "The Ten Commandments" would probably be out . They probably could have afforded something like that, but they would have been too cumbersome to carry around.

Don't really know what one can discern from looking at a picture, we can only make assumptions. I would assume that those in the picture are nomadic, they probably would be living a life like what I envision the Lehite group living.

What is your secret?

 

[Swart]

Hi there!



When you read the book of mormon and when you envision what the trip was like for Lehi's family who were rich and left their wealth behind to follow God's command...


Is this what you envision?

Living in a 250-lb open-air tent, sleeping in a rug at night, everyone eating out of one dish?

Take a close look at these people, and tell me what you feel about the lifestyle.



I'll let you in on a little secret and I hear some of your comments. What do you see in the picture?

~serapha~

Sorry! I cheated. These are bedouin women partaking of a meal c.1893.

Not exactly how I pictured Lehi and his family to look, let alone the beautiful daughters of Ishmael!

I suppose that's one advantage to spending so many years in the wilderness. Anything begins to look attractive. "Come here darlin' and gimma a kiss!"

1 Ne. 17: 2 And so great were the blessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon raw meat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings.

 

[Nehi]

I'm not LDS, but I'll jump in.

Why that picture is pure Look-see!

that is the visual counterpart to Hear-say isn't it?


~ NEHI (just teasin... Jenda)

 

[A New Dawn]

Why that picture is pure Look-see!

that is the visual counterpart to Hear-say isn't it?


~ NEHI (just teasin... Jenda)

Sure, but like I said, you can assume anything from a picture. Just like you can assume anything from a hearsay comment.

 

[Nehi]

I'm outta here for the evening.

~ NEHI (Bye Bye)

 

[Serapha]

HI there!




First of all to save the space... if you wouldn't mind editing out the photographs in your resonses, I am certain it would be appreciated... photos take a lot of memory

Swart:
Sorry! I cheated. These are bedouin women partaking of a meal c.1893.

You spoiled it!

I wasn't going to say they were all women until everyone had a vision in their mind. That's why I have such problems with the bom... Nephi just happened to have "tents" laying around waiting for a trip into the wilderness. They just happened to have dozens of camels available to make the trip. Their household was intact even after they had abandoned their home for the trip.

and here's one of the biggies... Lehi never complained about living in filth, living in a tent... do you realize that they didn't take baths too often..




Here's one for you... look at that communal meal, everyone just dips in the same bowl.

The big difference for those described in the bom is that it states that they are in the wilderness, in the desert sands. Do you know that the desert sands do to teeth? Grinds them down like sandpaper.

Can you imagine 7 years in the desert eating sandpaper three times a day? I don't remember ever reading anything in archaeology that stated that a toothbrush was ever found. Can you imagine their breath?


Imagine Lehi and entourage without teeth because of that. (just kidding)

Is that in the bom anywhere?



It doesn't matter that the "supposed" river never stopped flowing.... camel excretement would have polluted the water. I don't remember George Potter stating that the river was brackish with ammonia. hmmmm I shall have to ask Doc what years of drinking water laced with ammonia does to the human body.

How thirsty does one have to be to drink water laced with ammonia?


My point.... I hear the words of Mormons saying... "this could have been ... that could be...


Just wanted to pass on a reality check .... What I read from mormon apologetics and what I know to be different....

It's like reading two different stories.


~serapha~

 

[christopher123]

Just wanted to pass on a reality check .... What I read from mormon apologetics and what I know to be different....

It's like reading two different stories.

~serapha~

See the problem is you don't understand mormon apologetics. Below are attached two pictures which should better explain everything to you.

Chris <><

 

[Serapha]

See the problem is you don't understand mormon apologetics. Below are attached two pictures which should better explain everything to you.

Chris <><

And your point is?


~serapha~

 

[A New Dawn]

HI there!



I wasn't going to say they were all women until everyone had a vision in their mind. That's why I have such problems with the bom... Nephi just happened to have "tents" laying around waiting for a trip into the wilderness. They just happened to have dozens of camels available to make the trip. Their household was intact even after they had abandoned their home for the trip.

and here's one of the biggies... Lehi never complained about living in filth, living in a tent... do you realize that they didn't take baths too often..

I think that that is reading things into the text. It doesn't say anything about having tents and camels hanging around just in case a quick getaway is needed. They were rich, they could have afforded to buy what they needed for the journey prior to leaving. I don't think that the text means to imply that everything they did was recorded.

Here's one for you... look at that communal meal, everyone just dips in the same bowl.

The big difference for those described in the bom is that it states that they are in the wilderness, in the desert sands. Do you know that the desert sands do to teeth? Grinds them down like sandpaper.

Can you imagine 7 years in the desert eating sandpaper three times a day? I don't remember ever reading anything in archaeology that stated that a toothbrush was ever found. Can you imagine their breath?


Imagine Lehi and entourage without teeth because of that. (just kidding)

Is that in the bom anywhere?



It doesn't matter that the "supposed" river never stopped flowing.... camel excretement would have polluted the water. I don't remember George Potter stating that the river was brackish with ammonia. hmmmm I shall have to ask Doc what years of drinking water laced with ammonia does to the human body.

How thirsty does one have to be to drink water laced with ammonia?

My point.... I hear the words of Mormons saying... "this could have been ... that could be...

Just wanted to pass on a reality check .... What I read from mormon apologetics and what I know to be different....

It's like reading two different stories.

~serapha~

None of that is recorded in the Moses epoch, either, yet all of the same conditions had to have applied. Should we doubt that Moses took the Israelites for a 40 year journey, meandering through the desert, because those things aren't mentioned?

 

[Der Alte]

See the problem is you don't understand mormon apologetics. Below are attached two pictures which should better explain everything to you.

Chris <><

Is that a curly mom?

 

[Serapha]

Let me see, here, how good my apologetics skills are...

that's Daniel Peterson on the right...

Matthew Roper on the left.


~serapha~

 

[happyinhisgrace]

See the problem is you don't understand mormon apologetics. Below are attached two pictures which should better explain everything to you.

Chris <><

LOLOLOL, that is hilarious! very funny Chris, thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

 

[Swart]

I thought this was supposed to be a "just for fun" thread?

None of that is recorded in the Moses epoch, either, yet all of the same conditions had to have applied. Should we doubt that Moses took the Israelites for a 40 year journey, meandering through the desert, because those things aren't mentioned?

The dichotomy of thought is amazing isn't it? I would stack up the plausibility of Lehi's journey with that of Moses' anyday.

No, it was the REED Sea, not the RED Sea.
No, it was more like 40,000 people rather than the 800,000.
Perhaps it wasn't really 40 years?
No, they weren't really chariots.
There could have been a Tsunami, you know.
It wasn't REALLY blood.
Not all the firstborn children died.
The Egyptians must have been embarassed by what happened which is why they didn't record the events.

Of course, the most logical explanation is that these things didn't really occur. Or did they? I mean, we only have the Bible's word for it. Don't we? How can we trust the record of one book in the face of such overwhelming archaealogical evidence?

 

[Der Alte]

Let me see, here, how good my apologetics skills are...

that's Daniel Peterson on the right...

Matthew Roper on the left.


~serapha~

But who is the guy in the middle?

 

[Nehi]

Should we doubt that Moses took the Israelites for a 40 year journey, meandering through the desert, because those things aren't mentioned?

ABSOLUTELY, according to the "hear-say exclusion." In fact, Jenda, that's worse than hear-say...

... it's no hear - no see !!

~ NEHI

 

[Serapha]

I thought this was supposed to be a "just for fun" thread?

The Egyptians must have been embarassed by what happened which is why they didn't record the events.

I post the thread, just for fun... A diversion from the same old arguments and the same of "stuff"...


but I want to address this from the archaeological standpoint... I just researched this about 2-3 weeks ago... and from my notes...

Egypt was noted for "chisling out" their historical errors...







A news article from History Today, October 2003, identifies an example where the historical record of a defeat was removed from their records.



“Experts from the British Museum and Egypt have deciphered a 3,500-year-old inscription found earlier this year in a tomb at El Kab which reveals that a heavy defeat inflicted on the ancient Egyptians may have been removed from their historical records. The inscription was found at the tomb of Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, near Thebes, during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550 BC). It describes a ferocious invasion of Egypt by armies from Kush, and Sobeknakht's attempts at repelling them. The Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt is now organising large-scale investigations at the El Kab site. (July 28th)”1



____________

1 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_10_53/ai_108694228

©2004 LookSmart, Ltd.

Permission is granted to display, copy, distribute and download the materials on this Site for personal, noncommercial and informational use only, provided that you may not, without the permission of LookSmart or the respective copyright owner, (a) copy, publish or post any materials on any computer network or broadcast or publications media, (b) modify the materials or (c) remove or alter any copyright or other proprietary notices contained in the materials.



Also... you might want to take a look at pictures of "evidence" of removing the names/accounts of embarrassing situations or circumstances...



There are several reasons why there have been no evidences found of the Hebrew children on monuments in Egypt. The first would be that the Egyptians historically removed any evidences that did not compliment their heritage. When the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, their monuments were destroyed.












<< cited... photographs from...


http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/english/bauwerke/kar_temp/hat_kammern.htm










When Thutmose III came to power, the monuments and inscriptions of Hatshepsut where chiseled away in an attempt to remove evidences. In this photograph, the red arrow shows the removal of part of the name of the queen. Other areas show the destruction of the activities of the queen or the destruction of her body by chiseling away the image.





I hope this information helps in your understanding of why it is difficult to find historical (written) evidences of the Exodus in Egyptian records.


~serapha~

 

[Apex]

Huh?
Has anything, anything at all, ever been disproved in the Bible through archaeology? Has anything in the Bible ever been supported via archaeology? Can SLC say the same?

Some things have been supported in the Bible through archiology, but yet, contrary to popular belief, things in the Book of Mormon have also been supported by archiology. Also a lot of things in the Bible are considered to be stories that have been made up, just like how you thing everything in the Book of Mormon has been made up. What I see is that mainstreams dont really see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are almost on the exact same level archiologically. Know I know there are some things in the Bible that are true, like the existence of Jerusulam and stuff like that, but a lot of the stories and places in it have yet to be proven. Take Sodom and Gomorrah, places that could be them have been found, but not proven. Notice the "could", a lot of people here critizie us because of the "coulds" in our archiology, yet they dont realize that the "coulds" are found in just about all archiology, especially ancient.

 

[christopher123]

...mainstreams dont really see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are almost on the exact same level archiologically. (sic)

When you make statements like the above, you show people that you do not know what you are talking about. I think you need to do a little bit more studying.


Chris <><

 

[Nehi]

Some things have been supported in the Bible through archiology, but yet, contrary to popular belief, things in the Book of Mormon have also been supported by archiology. Also a lot of things in the Bible are considered to be stories that have been made up, just like how you thing everything in the Book of Mormon has been made up. What I see is that mainstreams dont really see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are almost on the exact same level archiologically. Know I know there are some things in the Bible that are true, like the existence of Jerusulam and stuff like that, but a lot of the stories and places in it have yet to be proven. Take Sodom and Gomorrah, places that could be them have been found, but not proven. Notice the "could", a lot of people here critizie us because of the "coulds" in our archiology, yet they dont realize that the "coulds" are found in just about all archiology, especially ancient.

Bible critics once said there were no Hittites, now there are Hittite grammars and lexicons readily available.

(ex. E.H. Sturtevant, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language: Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America, 1933).

Can you cite any Reformed Egyptian grammars or lexicons???

~ NEHI (Curious as a Curelom)