Years ago a Mormon member of my National Guard unit (he was nicknamed `Tailgate’ for his one piece holy underwear) kept pushing the equalness of the BoM with the Bible. In one book with a funny name (Alma, Mosiah, Ether, Nephi, I forget) there was constant mention of “the brother of Jared”, just over and over again.
When I asked if this brother of Jared dude had a real name of his own, ol’ Tailgate piped up that the twelve Apostles in Salt Lake City had just received a divine revelation that BoJ’s actual name was.....(drumroll).....
“Moroni Moriancumr”
Anyway, I thought these Nephite cruise arks were also capable of traveling submerged (to avoid storms on the surface, you see).
;^)
Re storms @ surface & being forced under the waves:
I recall when Greyfoxx39 posted a link last year to the Jaredite Barge Contest Winners from New Era, Jul 1975, 13.
The New Era contest: The New Era proudly announces the winners of the Design-a-Jaredite-Barge Contest. There were many interesting and beautiful entries from many parts of the United States and from other countries. Although the three winning models shown here do not pretend to show what the Jaredite barges actually looked like, they do show thought and care in design and a firm understanding and reading of the Book of Mormon scriptures that describe the Jaredite barges.
The first place winner from this contest came to the conclusion upon reading the obvious unfine print in the BoM: “No doubt about it, there were holes in the top and the bottom." [Gee, really? The text plainly says that?]
His next assessment? Some people suggest two holes were called for because the barges sometimes turned over. In my opinion this would have been catastrophic, especially when you consider that the barge was full of people, food, water, and animals.
OK, let me get this straight. He's just read in the BoM that holes were to placed in the top & bottom of 8 vessels. So who are the lame-brain "let's read something completely different into the text" folks? (Other than Mormon apologists like Ash)...But certainly, I could see the motivation for these lame-brainers to want to change the text...I mean, after all, what an amateur shipbuilder's dream! Build vessels with stoppable holes in the bottom!
So, this kid didn't seem to stop & think. I mean, what's the only purpose a vessel could have for a hole in its bottom? Answer? The "bottom" wasn't always "bottom" -- sometimes it pitched & rolled & remained upside down underwater.
It was almost as if he didn't read Ether 2:24-25 and 6:5-7 which describes waves crashing upon the vessels; the vessels acting like a whale in the sea; mentions three times being driven to "the depths" of the sea...all of these are wave actions upon a "tight as a dish" barge & thereby is actually consistent then with a possible motivation for wanting a hole in the bottom. It's almost like a rolling vessel.
But, I had to give the kid credit for one thing many Lds adults have flunked on: He realized something obvious applicable to such a vessel no matter what (even tho he thought it'd only apply to a 2-hole-in-the-top vessel). And so the kid came up with the following observation re: "turned-over barges": ...the barges sometimes turned over. In my opinion this would have been catastrophic, especially when you consider that the barge was full of people, food, water, and animals.
Indeed! Yes, sir, exactly, right!
(Sometimes, Lds youth will back up into an obvious conclusion that's escaped so many older generation Mormons. Lds can't have it both ways: They can't on the one hand, try to make the case for a hole in the bottom of such a vessel -- and then pretend the turned "catastrophic" effects upon people, food, water & animals inside didn't play out -- if in fact, that purposeful design came about -- as Ether 2:24-25 & 6:5-7 says it did).