A split thread: Joseph Smith

[Norman]

He didn't predict the opposing side. He simply said nations will go to war. I predict that one day there will be a world war III. Many people have predicted it.

And the fact that there continues to be wars doesn't really help the case that your guy claimed that there will be war in America that will cause wars overseas. And if we give him that and say that we can rationalize it enough then he said "all nations". Not all nations were involved. An actual world war of incredible levels of conflict could have been possible. Hell he seemed to just be copying and going off of revelation in predicting world wars.

Norman: Copying what?

 

[Norman]

Your cannot stop faith in someone, using education and knowledge.

No matter how much evidence we provide, many will sadly never accept the truth. Fanaticism lies to deep and ingrained in some of the faithful.

Norman: What evidence outhouse?

 

[Norman]

2 points

1) If it was coincidental I have to give him nothing in regards of prophethood. I could call him lucky at worst and insightful at best.

2) Lets examine this part shall we ?


So any idiot can read this and take that not only is he talking about an instantaenous pull of war that "pours" from the conflict of the united states into other nations but also indicates that it will happen via intervention from Great Britain on behalf of the Southern States.

Absolutely none of this happens. The only thing about of 4-5 claims that ended up being right was the bit about South Carolina. This sounds very much like a general informed guess of what may happen in the future. He was somewhat on the right track but wrong about everything else. Modern Mormonism spends a great deal of time trying to find ways to work out these Prophecy claims to somehow be fulfilled. They bend over backwards to make something even resemble a prophecy fulfillment.

Norman: Midnight Rain, many wars poured out after D&C 87, I am not going to waste my time posting them, the list is too long. Your opinion and your exiguous of information doesn't add to the debate. Saying disparaging words like "any idiot" and your baring false witness to what you called "Modern Mormonism spends a great deal of time trying to find ways to work out these prophecy claims to some how be fulfilled." We don't have to work out nothing about the prophecies that Joseph Smith made as Mormonism as a whole, just when people like you try to define what we believe and teach and try to offer excogitated information that is scanty. Have you even read the Doctrine and Covenants? Have you really studied about the man Joseph Smith? The only one that is working hard to prove something wrong is you. How many times are you going to attack us?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Norman: Monk, is that all you have is Ad-hominem attacks in this thread? Why don't you actually post some viable information if you really want to debate?

Your right. I actually did try at the beginning and had in-depth posts with lots of substance to them. But when I found out I was talking to a wall I found very little use in actually formulating a well thought out response.

Though I'm not wrong about his claim. I read the passages and I've read a number of different prophecies and how they were "fulfilled" and I'm not convinced and how anyone else is convinced is beyond me. But I guess we have to chalk it up to people "wanting" to believe. I mean we have people who still don't accept evolution, carbon dating or that the earth goes round the sun. And I've been drinking since its the big game. So I tend to be a little less serious when inebriated.

However if you want to bring forth an actual argument for one of the prophecies that doesn't involve logical yoga I am willing to discuss it seriously.

 

[Norman]

Pigs & Cattle both imply domesticated animals. And there is simply no proof Peccaries were ever domesticated.



That's a good start.


So basically we're dealing with a situation where we have two sets of people, neither of which can even begin to understand the other? And...you base your Holy Book on that? Two people, one of which could be talking about a literal dragon and the other mistakenly believe they were talking about a wee salamander?


All languages have an "It came to pass" equivalent.


So you do not think YHWH is Omnipresent?

Norman: Hi Nietzsche, Of course we do, we believe Jehovah of the Old Testament is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Infinite.

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: Monk, is that all you have is Ad-hominem attacks in this thread? Why don't you actually post some viable information if you really want to debate?

Hey Norman, where's the beef?

 

[Sapiens]

Lighter yes. Sharper, yes. More durable, no. Iron swords would've been far more useful, we know this because we have examples of what happens when a people with iron weapons goes up against a people without them. You can see examples of events not unlike that, in climates not unlike South America, through out Asia.



I think it would've been noteworthy to mention these "chariots" had no horses. But it doesn't. And by using the word "chariot", it implies some manner of animal pulling it. Why did they use that word?



Those are from the Canary Islands.

The lost Hebrews must have dropped them off.

 

[Nietzsche]

Norman: Hi Sapiens, the fact is you cannot debunk "Nahom" it is a fact what was found.

That's a sketchy assumption to make. What was actually found is a place called "NHM". Which makes sense, as Hebrew has no vowels. However-

One: The area is not pronounced "Nahom" by the people who live there. It's closer to "Nihm" or "Nehem".

Two: The earliest we can date NHM is to 600 CE Long, long long after the purported events in the BofM.

Three: There are many areas in the Bible, mostly in the Old Testament and the Torah/Talmud it is taken from that speak of several places referred to as "NHM", as it is/was derived from something that roughly means "mourning place".

There is simply not remotely enough evidence to suggest that is the mythical Nahom. The only thing about it that is remotely similar is again, the name. But as I stated, it's pronounced completely wrong for it to be that place. Place-name pronounciation does not change that very swiftly at all. Most world place-names(in their original languages) are thousands of years old, effectively unchanged.

 

[Sapiens]

I am indebted to Nietzsche The Last Prussian for his clear explanation of what lies were told of the lay of the land in the Arabian Desert.

Norman: Hi Sapiens, the fact is you cannot debunk "Nahom" it is a fact what was found. I don't see any embarrassment accept for your despairing comments and basement of derogatory attitude and worshiping at your Altar of charlatan at your best. All your harangue, philippic and Jeremiad comments in your post's have gotten you no where. Your straw man arguments and your information is nothing more than an Oxy-moron in the study of the Book of Mormon. I doubt that you have never read the book. You keep Begging the Question of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon over and over and over. All your Ad-hominem attacks has done nothing for you in this thread; It seems to me that is all you have left. to offer in this thread.

It appears that you require instruction as to what constitutes an ad hominem attack. Now where I to say, "Pay no attention to the BoM that Joseph Smith wrote, after all, he was a pederast." That would be an ad hominem attack, even though the charge made were to be true since there is no connection between the charge of pederasty and the BofM. However, were I to say, "Pay no attention to the BoM that Joseph Smith wrote, after all, he was a lair, and here is an example of his lies: he claims the occurrence of various organisms, both plant and animal that are known to not have existed in the New World at the time claimed." That is not an ad hominem attack, that is a claim that Smith was a liar, followed by support for the claim. Normally the support would be more extensive and referenced and footnoted and such ... but we've already done that and I see no reason to repeat it here.

This is not an ad hominem: there is definitive (at least for the unbrainwashed) proof that the Book of Abraham is a fraudulent "translation," given that fact, would you believe any claim that Smith made with respect to a "translation?" I would not credit it, but then I've not had oxy-moron (a brainwash that you can buy on TV) applied to my little grey cells.

So let's be clear ... I made no ad hominem attacks, I made a clear claim, I leveled a clear charge, and I supported it with documentation that is more than sufficient to prove my case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Do you understand the difference? The fact that Smith had a thing for young girls does not go to the creditability of what he wrote in the BofM; but the clear and demonstrable errors of fact that he included, concerning items of indisputable fact, brand him a liar, and as a result open his entire body of work to serious question.

Additionally, try in the future to not use words that you do not know the meaning of and can not spell. "oxymoron" is not hyphenated and is a figure of speech that juxtaposes elements that appear to be contradictory such as the phrase "falsely true" used in Tennyson's Lancelot and Elaine.

“The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church...

To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church — everything — rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward."

We have seen that the BofM is NOT what Smith said it is, so we should take Apostle Holland at his word and recognize that, "this Church and it;s founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward."

"Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, [1] after seeing the Father and the Son, [2] later beheld the angel Moroni, [3] repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually [4] receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which [5] he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not.

Pretty easy to make a very strong case he did not (and that's being charitable).

And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those."

I guess he's not entitled.

"I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically."

Seems to have been a monumental "fail," As suggested by the good apostle it is: "past time to consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all"

 

[rrosskopf]

Obsidian, while ridiculously sharp, is also incredibly brittle and easy to shatter. A tap with an iron sword would've been enough. Again, that was part of how the Spanish conquered the continent.

It is my understanding that the Spanish were outmatched in every way, and that it was only by pitting opposing factions, that the Spanish were able to gain victory over the natives.

 

[Nietzsche]

It is my understanding that the Spanish were outmatched in every way, and that it was only by pitting opposing factions, that the Spanish were able to gain victory over the natives.

That certainly eased the process, but they were aiding the factions they liked(and who would be subservient to them) with steel swords and what not. Steel is obviously even better than iron, but iron swords would've done the job nearly as well. A civilization in that part of the world, at the time the BofM claims it would've been there, would've swiftly became The dominant power in the region.

And as I stated again, their technology would've spread. Given that it supposedly occured more than a thousand years ago, there is simply no excuse as to why it didn't spread. Especially northwards.

If the events occurred as depicted(and hand-waving away all the butterfly effect changes that would be bound to happen), the Spanish would've found themselves up against a far more formidable foe.Their conquest would not have been remotely as swift as it was.

And as I've repeatedly stated, we have examples of that very thing occurring in similar climates(south-east Asia, Burma, ect), but it was Iron-Wielders vs Bronze-Wielders, which is far more even, and yet those with Iron continuously prevailed with relative ease. Technological supremacy, especially if it is a significant leap forwards, always ends with the less-advanced people being conquered by the more advanced. This is something that has happened countless times through history, something that happens now, and will continue to happen.

 

[rrosskopf]

The area is not pronounced "Nahom" by the people who live there. It's closer to "Nihm" or "Nehem".

According to Wikipedia, "Nahm" is also used. To Lehi, an Israelite, he would have heard Nahom, the word for sorrow.

The earliest we can date NHM is to 600 CE Long, long long after the purported events in the BofM.

According to Wikipedia, "The first altar was dated to between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C by French researcher Christian Robin", which is right on target.

There are many areas in the Bible, mostly in the Old Testament and the Torah/Talmud it is taken from that speak of several places referred to as "NHM", as it is/was derived from something that roughly means "mourning place".

This is strong evidence that Lehi would have heard it as "Nahom", according to the Jewish manner of speaking.

Nahom does exist, in the right place, in the right time, and it does have an ancient graveyard. There is no need to stop there. Candidates have been found for every step of the journey. Almost due east of Nahom is Bountiful. Nephi's description of Bountiful is completely accurate, and contrary to the "common knowledge" of Joseph Smith's day. It is a verdant region of Arabia, where there existed an ancient harbor, and the resources for building ships.

"And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.
"And it came to pass that we did pitch our tents by the seashore; and notwithstanding we had suffered many afflictions and much difficulty, yea, even so much that we cannot write them all, we were exceedingly rejoiced when we came to the seashore; and we called the place Bountiful, because of its much fruit.
"And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters."
"And it came to pass that the Lord told me whither I should go to find ore, that I might make tools."
(1 Nephi 17)

 

[Nietzsche]

According to Wikipedia, "Nahm" is also used. To Lehi, an Israelite, he would have heard Nahom, the word for sorrow.

You don't know much about Hebrew, do you?

The inscription states "NHM". Nihm, Nehem, Nehm, and all the other assumptions as to how it is pronounced are just that. Assumptions. It would be like finding "BRD" on something and assuming it's pronounced "bird" rather than "beard" or "bread" or "bred" or "breed" or "Brad" or "bard" or "broad" or "braid". You see where I'm going here?

According to Wikipedia, "The first altar was dated to between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C by French researcher Christian Robin", which is right on target.

I just got done skimming Robin's article on the subject. He does not, at any point refer to it as anything other than NHM. There are many NHMs in Arabia.

This is strong evidence that Lehi would have heard it as "Nahom", according to the Jewish manner of speaking.

That's simply false. Hebrew vowels are spoken, not written. We cannot say with any certainty what it actually sounds like.

Nahom does exist, in the right place, in the right time, and it does have an ancient graveyard. There is no need to stop there. Candidates have been found for every step of the journey.

The BofM fails to mention any outsiders he met on his journey. Given the burial mounds there, you'd think there would be mention of the people who lived in the area. And again, we will never know how NHM was pronounced. Hebrew is frustrating like that.

Almost due east of Nahom is Bountiful. Nephi's description of Bountiful is completely accurate, and contrary to the "common knowledge" of Joseph Smith's day.

That again is not true. You are conflating our popular modern conception of Arabia with what people knew of it in his(Joe's) day. This is, again, no different from saying that Columbus was the only person who didn't believe the world was flat.

It is a verdant region of Arabia, where there existed an ancient harbor, and the resources for building ships

There's a coastline nearby, yes. Cities spring up near water. There is also a harbour there, as one is want to do when you're near water. But this brings up a whole new set of problems that I've yet to really mention.

How did a bunch of mostly illiterate desert-dwellers have even one-one hundredth the skill or even knowledge of how to build an ocean-going vessel? Much less one that would've had to have traveled through or around Indonesia, or around Australia? And to compound the problem, how did he feed those people? How did he clothe them? Do you have any idea as to how much supplies one needs to cross the Pacific Ocean starting in Yemen?

 

[rrosskopf]

Steel is obviously even better than iron, but iron swords would've done the job nearly as well. A civilization in that part of the world, at the time the BofM claims it would've been there, would've swiftly became The dominant power in the region.

That is an interesting claim. Certainly civilizations are driven by technology. I don't believe that Cortez and his hundreds were any match for the Aztecs and their thousands, but would he have done better if the playing field was even? Iron is more durable than wood. It is easier to manufacture? How long does it take to fix a broken wooden sword? A heavy weapon might be a severe hindrance in the tropics. How much heavier were the Spanish swords than that native wooden swords? Some of the native swords were longer than the Spanish swords, and that might have given them an advantage. The only records that I have found indicate that the Spanish were outmatched and even terrified of the Aztec weapons. The jungle is a very acidic environment; how long would it take for an iron sword to rust away?

"And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust;" (Mosiah 8:11)

The Nephites brought the rusty Jaredite swords back to the king because they were a curiosity. Perhaps they had never seen such a sword.

It is also interesting that the Lamanites didn't accuse the Nephites of having superior swords...

"Behold, we are not of your faith; we do not believe that it is God that has delivered us into your hands; but we believe that it is your cunning that has preserved you from our swords. Behold, it is your breastplates and your shields that have preserved you." (Alma 44:9)

Swords are conspicuous by their absence. The evidence that the Nephites once manufactured steel swords is circumstantial; they patterned swords after the Sword of Laban, but that could have referred to the twin cutting edges and not the material. Nephi was proficient at metalergy, but it takes more than a knowledge of metalergy to make usable metal swords.

It is also interesting to note that not one maquahuitl has survived. If we can't find one example of the most common sword, then what chance is there of finding a steel sword that predates them by 2000 years?

It wasn't until fairly recently that steel swords were discovered in the Middle East, dating to the time of Lehi. They have the perfect environment for the preservation of swords, and far more archaeological surveys than those in Mexico; why did it take them so long to discover a steel sword?

I can only conclude that there are huge gaps in the archaeological record, and that absence of evidence doesn't mean much.

 

[outhouse]

. Nephi was proficient at metalergy

Unsubstantiated. He is not known to exist.

. The evidence that the Nephites once manufactured steel swords is circumstantial

They are not known to exist.


The evidence is factually non existing.

 

[outhouse]

The Nephites brought the rusty Jaredite swords back to the king because they were a curiosity

Unsubstantiated.

 

[outhouse]

It is also interesting that the Lamanites didn't accuse the Nephites of having superior swords...

Unsubstantiated.

Not interesting if it is all mythology.

 

[Nietzsche]

That is an interesting claim. Certainly civilizations are driven by technology. I don't believe that Cortez and his hundreds were any match for the Aztecs and their thousands, but would he have done better if the playing field was even?

I believe you misunderstood. Spain's conquest was aided by them giving rival tribes steel weapons.

Iron is more durable than wood. It is easier to manufacture? How long does it take to fix a broken wooden sword? A heavy weapon might be a severe hindrance in the tropics. How much heavier were the Spanish swords than that native wooden swords?

The weight of a sword is severely over-estimated in popular culture. These were weapons that had to be practical to wield for long periods of time. If you ever get the chance, visit a Renaissance Festival and find one of the tents where they sell swords. You'll notice that they are surprisingly light.

Some of the native swords were longer than the Spanish swords, and that might have given them an advantage.

Reach is important, but it's also not very effective if the other guy can break your "sword" with a decent strike. Spain's problem was their body-armour weighing them down.

The only records that I have found indicate that the Spanish were outmatched and even terrified of the Aztec weapons.

They were terrified of their obsidian-glass swords, which could supposedly cleave a horse' head clean off. But when they changed their fighting style(striking the weapon rather than the individual) things started going in their favour.

The jungle is a very acidic environment; how long would it take for an iron sword to rust away?

Depending on the quality of the iron and the smelting & forging ability of the people charged with their upkeep, they could stay theoretically in perfect condition indefinitely. Even if for some reason or another they couldn't, these would've supposedly have been a people who knew how to look for iron and how to smelt it(something the per-Columbians never did)

"And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust;" (Mosiah 8:11)

The Nephites brought the rusty Jaredite swords back to the king because they were a curiosity. Perhaps they had never seen such a sword.

That really isn't helping your case. Iron had been around for quite a while when these events were supposed to have happened.

It is also interesting that the Lamanites didn't accuse the Nephites of having superior swords...

And? I'm not sure where you're going with that.

"Behold, we are not of your faith; we do not believe that it is God that has delivered us into your hands; but we believe that it is your cunning that has preserved you from our swords. Behold, it is your breastplates and your shields that have preserved you." (Alma 44:9)

Swords are conspicuous by their absence. The evidence that the Nephites once manufactured steel swords is circumstantial; they patterned swords after the Sword of Laban, but that could have referred to the twin cutting edges and not the material. Nephi was proficient at metalergy, but it takes more than a knowledge of metalergy to make usable metal swords.

It is also interesting to note that not one maquahuitl has survived. If we can't find one example of the most common sword, then what chance is there of finding a steel sword that predates them by 2000 years?

I'm not saying they would have had steel swords. I am saying they would have had iron swords.

It wasn't until fairly recently that steel swords were discovered in the Middle East, dating to the time of Lehi. They have the perfect environment for the preservation of swords, and far more archaeological surveys than those in Mexico; why did it take them so long to discover a steel sword?

I can only conclude that there are huge gaps in the archaeological record, and that absence of evidence doesn't mean much

Again, I was talking about iron. However, in regards to the Middle East, swords of fallen soldiers were easily accessible pieces of useable iron. You rarely have weapons left on a battlefield because they would be taken back and either re-issued or melted down to make something else.

Regarding the gaps; there wouldn't be any gaps if they had iron swords, because again, they would've known how to melt them down and either repurpose the iron or make new weapons out of them.[/quote]

 

[rrosskopf]

The inscription states "NHM". Nihm, Nehem, Nehm, and all the other assumptions as to how it is pronounced are just that. Assumptions. It would be like finding "BRD" on something and assuming it's pronounced "bird" rather than "beard" or "bread" or "bred" or "breed" or "Brad" or "bard" or "broad" or "braid". You see where I'm going here?

Yeah, you are refuting your own previous argument.

I just got done skimming Robin's article on the subject. He does not, at any point refer to it as anything other than NHM. There are many NHMs in Arabia.

How many? Where are they? Sources? How many are due south of Jerusalem, and due east of the south coast of Arabia?

That's simply false. Hebrew vowels are spoken, not written. We cannot say with any certainty what it actually sounds like.

Once, again, you are refuting your own argument. NHM certainly could be the Nahom referenced in the Book of Mormon. I am not presenting this as proof, but as evidence, which it most certainly is.

The BofM fails to mention any outsiders he met on his journey. Given the burial mounds there, you'd think there would be mention of the people who lived in the area.

They probably would have met people on the coast as well; they could even have bought lumber from a local lumber yard. Nephi doesn't tell us much about such things. It is curious that the Dedanites, who controlled the spice trade, changed their name to Lehyites not long after Lehi traveled through the area. It is in fact an intriguing theory for the origin of the wise men, who knew when Christ would be born, as Lehi knew when Christ would be born.
Lehi and his family "sojourned" in the wilderness between Nahom and Bountiful for 8 years, but Nephi tell us next to nothing of this period. Lehi later calls this time the days of his greatest tribulation and sorrow. (2 Nephi 2:1 and 3:1) If Lehi and his family were living there for 8 years, they would have encountered other people. They may have had to pay some sort of tribute, just for the right to stay. We are not told what events made this segment of the journey so hard for Lehi. Nephi is very selective in what he includes in this record.

That again is not true. You are conflating our popular modern conception of Arabia with what people knew of it in his(Joe's) day.

I'm all ears. Show me once source available to Joseph Smith that talks about any part of Arabia as a verdant and fruitful oasis. I could be wrong. Do you have any references?

There's a coastline nearby, yes. Cities spring up near water. There is also a harbour there, as one is want to do when you're near water.

Well, that isn't very generous. Reefs make many otherwise useful harbors useless. Cliffs also make harbors useless. Shallow harbors are almost useless. In fact there were very few cities in the time of Lehi along the Arabian coast, and even fewer harbors.

How did a bunch of mostly illiterate desert-dwellers have even one-one hundredth the skill or even knowledge of how to build an ocean-going vessel? Much less one that would've had to have traveled through or around Indonesia, or around Australia? And to compound the problem, how did he feed those people? How did he clothe them? Do you have any idea as to how much supplies one needs to cross the Pacific Ocean starting in Yemen?

Nephi actually goes into some detail about building and provisioning the ship. His brothers thought he was nuts, and refused to help at first.

"And when my brethren saw that I was about to build a ship, they began to murmur against me, saying: Our brother is a fool, for he thinketh that he can build a ship; yea, and he also thinketh that he can cross these great waters. And thus my brethren did complain against me, and were desirous that they might not labor, for they did not believe that I could build a ship; neither would they believe that I was instructed of the Lord." (1 Nephi 17:17)

Nephi goes on to tell us
"And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the ship. Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men."

"And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children. And now, my father had begat two sons in the wilderness; the elder was called Jacob and the younger Joseph. And it came to pass after we had all gone down into the ship, and had taken with us our provisions and things which had been commanded us, we did put forth into the sea and were driven forth before the wind towards the promised land."

 

[outhouse]

Nephi actually goes into some detail about building and provisioning the ship.

Historically unsubstantiated.

Please post something more credible to support your position.