Even though Lehi’s family left Jerusalem through direct revelation to Lehi, the family experienced significant dissension. Apparently Ishmael did not receive a revelation directly; rather, he accepted the testimony of Nephi and his brothers who “did speak unto him the words of the Lord” (1 Ne. 7:4). He responded with sufficient faith that he obtained a witness of their truthfulness, uprooted his family, and went with the brothers to an unknown land of promise.
Culture: John L. Sorenson has speculated on Ishmael’s possible age and social status:
Ishmael was the first of the trekking party to die, according to the record. Presumably he was older than Lehi. That is supported by the fact that his eldest daughter was too old to marry any of Lehi’s sons (she ended up marrying Zoram, the former servant, 1 Ne. 16:7; this was definitely a second-class marriage, though better than none).
Ishmael also had four younger daughters, none of whom was married. No hint is given that the father had mentionable wealth, only a “house” (1 Ne. 7:4). Nibley suggested that Ishmael was “connected with the desert.” But a desert man settled into a “house” was usually of somewhat marginal social status in the Near East. In the course of normal events, the prospects for a man of modest means and well along in life to arrange marriages for so many daughters would have been limited. So the appearance of four known young suitors at the door, even if they had not previously made any courtship moves, must have stirred interest in the family even before “the Lord did soften the heart of Ishmael, and also his household” (1 Ne. 7:5). Had the family been prosperous, likely they would not have been so willing to head off into the desert; as it was, they could see advantages.
Variant: “… and also his household.” The original manuscript is in the hand of scribe 3 at this point and reads “… and his hole.” The scribe then wrote hole above the line so that when Oliver Cowdery was preparing the printer’s manuscript he had the phrase “… and his hole hole.” Cowdery emended this to just the word “household.” Skousen suggests that the first hole was intended to be whole and that the phrase should be whole household. “Obviously some conjecture of 1 Nephi 7:5 is required since the phrase ‘hole hole’ is impossible. The emendation ‘whole household’ is consistent with usage elsewhere; it also more readily explains why scribe 3 ended up writing ‘hole hole’ in [the original manuscript].”