LeGrand L. Baker

2 Nephi 30:2 — LeGrand Baker– Name of God

2 Nephi 30:2
2   For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel (2 Ne. 30:2 ).

The phrase “Holy One of Israel” is the key to the meaning of this verse, thus deserves close attention.

In the phrase, “Holy One of Israel,” the Hebrew word translated “Holy” does not mean “complete,” as “holy” often does. Rather it means: “sacred (ceremonially or morally)” (Strong 6918). In simpler English, on e could say “Holy” means “ceremonially sacred.”

The Hebrew word translated “one” does not simply mean the number, like in the sentence, ‘I have one rose.’ Rather it means oneness, to be “united,” or brought “together” (Strong 259 ).

We find in Psalms 89:18, “For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.” And the similar statement in Isaiah 43:15, ” I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.”

Thus it appears that the phrase “Holy One of Israel” is one of Jehovah’s king-names ( i.e. covenant name, or new name ), reminding us that the Father will “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:” (Ephesians 1:10); just as the phrase “Lord of Hosts” (Master of the Armies) is Jehovah’s king-name denoting his responsibility as protector, defender, and commanding general in Israel’s military relations with her neighbors.

Thus it appears that the phrase, “Holy one of israel” is the sacral king-name ( covenant name, or new name ) of the God and king by and in whom israel is ceremonially united.

That phrase “Holy One of Israel” is used 68 times in the scriptures. In each of those uses, the context suggests that the one spoken of has the rights, prerogatives, and powers of a king. But they rarely suggest kingship in a military sense. The greatest single scriptural concentration of the phrase, “Holy One of Israel,” is found in Second Nephi chapter 9, which is Jacob’s discourse on the atonement of Christ. (There it is used twelve times – almost one fifth of the whole. ) Most of these statements have to do with judgement and God’s power to be the judge – which was the most important peace-time power of an ancient Near Eastern king. Typical of Jacob’s teachings is this regard is 2 Nephi 9:25:

25  Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

In other statements Jacob refers to Jehovah’s power to give and deny life, which is the ultimate of godly powers which can be expressed also as an earthly-kingly prerogative. Jacob speaks of “that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel” ( 2 Ne. 9: 26). And “by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel” ( 2 Ne. 9:12).

Thus in Jacob’s magnificent sermon about the Saviour’s atonement, Jacob repeatedly ties the powers and prerogatives of the atonement to Jehovah’s authority as King. The second greatest scriptural consecration of the phrase “Holy One of Israel” is found in First Nephi 22 (6 times) which talks about Joseph Smith’s restoration of the temple and of the blessings associated therewith. Here the idea of Jehovah’s kingship is closely associated with the notion of kingship as it was taught by the Saviour in the Beatitudes, that is, the relationship between kingship (having the name “child of God”) and of having peace or being a “peacemaker.” (Nephi does not use the word “peace” in the following verses, but he describes it.)

24   And the time cometh speedily that the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall, and the Holy One of Israel must reign in dominion, and might, and power, and great glory.
….
26   And because of the righteousness of his people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness [ i.e. zedek = priesthood and temple temple correctness ], and the Holy One of Israel reigneth. (1 Nephi 22:24-26 ).

Scholars assert that the Psalms are the texts of the ancient Israelite new year coronation festival. The writings of Isaiah are largely a commentary on the meaning of that festival and its coronation ceremonies. Nephi and Jacob’s writings are very closely tied to that same idea and sequence. Thus, it is not at all surprising that almost all of the scriptural uses of this sacred royal name of Israel’s God are found in the writings of Isaiah, Nephi, Jacob, and in the Psalms.

Now let us return to the verse which initiated this discussion. Embedded in that verse, written by Nephi, one discovers a carefully worded composite of all of the sacred kingship connotations found in the phrase “Holy One of Israel.”

2   For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel (2 Ne. 30:2 ).

2 Nephi 29:1-3 — LeGrand Baker — ‘A Bible, a Bible…’

2 Nephi 29:1-3
1   But behold, there shall be many—at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel;
2   And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel;
3   And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

There tends to be four sorts of Christian professional church people (both Catholic and Protestant, and increasingly even some Mormons) who accept the scriptures, but only on their own terms and not on God’s. Those terms are different from the one God describes here, which is that he might fulfill the covenants he made with us in our premortal life, and which he has re-confirmed with the prophets as their time came when they should be on the earth. Those categories of church people are:

1) The preacher, who is essentially a Bible thumper, who sees himself as
the interpreter of God’s word and would be either frustrated or angered at the notion that there is an authenticated interpretation which is different from his own. He doesn’t want a second Bible because it might cause him to change his mind about what he teaches from the first one.

2) The sociologist whose training focused on sociology and psychology, and who uses the Bible as a source of “inspiration” for his parishioners, but who doesn’t believe a thing in it that doesn’t conform to his own sociological training. To him the very idea that God spoke to anyone at all is absurd.

He doesn’t want a second Bible because he has already rejected the first.

3) The scholars — archaeologists and historians who see the Bible as an ancient history book, which is showing itself to be surprisingly accurate
in its historical detail, but whose authors made assumptions about God and religion which are fundamentally only the same as the ones their pagan neighbors made. These scholars probably actually understand the Bible better than the people in either of the two previous categories. But they understand it in terms of what they believe the ancients thought and did, rather than in terms of what God taught and did. For them, a second witness for Christ would upset their entire academic apple cart and they would have to re-think many of their favorite ideas. Consequently, there can be no place in their academia for such a second Bible.

2 Nephi 28:19-32 — LeGrand Baker — choosing good or evil

2 Nephi 28:19-32
19   For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;
20   For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.
21   And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well–and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.
22   And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none–and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

It doesn’t seem to make much difference which message is received from the Devil. If one sees good and becomes angry because he sees it as evil; or if one sees evil and perceives it as good, either has the same effect upon his soul. The system seems to be (I’m paraphrasing Chauncy Riddle here) If one sees a good thing the devil teaches him that the goodness is of the devil. If one sees a bad thing the devil teaches him that it cannot be of the devil because there is none.

23   Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

In an ancient temple context, the word ‘works’ almost always means ordinances (as in the book of James and in Alma 12).

28   And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rockreceiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

There is only one truly sacred rock. Symbolically it is the one at Jerusalem upon which the holy of holies stood. In truth, it is the Saviour, whose earthly throne was in that holy of holies.

29   Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!
30   For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
31   Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.
32   Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

More obvious references to the ancient temple drama. I don’t know how Nephi could have said it any more clearly. The options are either coming into the presence of God, or not coming into the presence of God. Its either one, or else it’s the other.

A personal note: As I wrote this, the contrast between good and evil caused me to reflect. Most of the people who will read what I have just written are my close personal friends – people whom I love and trust. This note is to you. It seems to me, that as one walks in the darkness that is this world, the next best thing to being in the presence of God, is to have friends who try to be like Him. To each of you, thank you for being my friend. Please accept the embrace I would send with this note, as if only you were near enough to hug. – LeGrand

2 Nephi 28:1-3, 9, 13 – LeGrand Baker — false churches

1   And now, behold, my brethren, I have spoken unto you, according as the Spirit hath constrained me; wherefore, I know that they must surely come to pass.
2   And the things which shall be written out of the book shall be of great worth unto the children of men, and especially unto our seed, which is a remnant of the house of Israel.
3   For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord—
….
9   Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
….
13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.

It is an axiom among historians that the primary function of religion has always been to help the rich control and exploit the poor. This assumption is the basic premise upon which is built most modern studies of ancient, as well as contemporary religions. And one doesn’t have to look very hard to discover that the argument appears to be very sound indeed.

I used to wonder what would have become of me if I had not been born into the LDS Church. I’m not sure I would have joined the church as a convert, and I can’t imagine where my attitudes would have taken me otherwise.

Throughout human history, religion has been the major power of enslavement used by governments against their own people. In the ancient world, kings were either gods or representatives of god. In more modern times, that same assertion (though colored by more “acceptable” political jargon) has been made by leaders as diverse in their philosophy as Hitler and Stalin; and as typical as Eva Peron. In our own country, the political deification of John Kennedy is an expose in miniature of American political principles and practices.

Religion and patriotism have almost always been synonymous. It is because of that union, or, by way of that mutual co-dependence, that throughout human history, religion has been the primary machine by which the political and economic elite have generated human hatred and human suffering. The promise of riches in the afterlife has been exploited to enforce and to justify poverty and wretchedness in this life. Governments use religion to manipulate the morality, emotions, and credulity – both the productive and the destructive powers – of the masses.

In medieval Europe, kings were almost entirely subservient to the Pope. Before Henry VIII, the Catholic Church owned one third of all real estate in England, and one third of English taxes were sent to Rome every year. Henry VIII broke the back of that subservience by confiscating the church’s property, keeping much of it, and distributing the remainder to the British aristocracy (After that, if the Catholics were to re-take their power in England, the English aristocracy would have to give back the confiscated property. So Protestantism became secure in England) But even so, the English king remained the final religious authority in his kingdom. Today, Queen Elizabeth is still head of the Church of England.

As recently as Victoria’s day, the power of the church was used to sustain a veneer of “morality” ( under which was hidden un-condemned white slavery) and a justification of Social Darwinism (under which was condoned the poverty and corruption decried by Charles Dickens). The religious veneer of “Victorian Morality” not only prevailed in England, but also in America. It was under the critical eye of American Protestant ministers that Jim Crow laws were passed in the South and Mormons were persecuted in the west.

Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and his understanding that personal, political, and economic freedom were absolutely impossible without the separation of church and state, to Americans, at least, the idea that the Queen is the head of the Church of England seems not to mean much nowadays. But in principle it has always meant a great deal. The spread of religion was the justification for the creation and ultimate power of the British empire (As it was for the Spanish, French, Dutch, and German empires), and it was the less overtly recognized rationale which supported America’s “Manifest Destiny.”

Modern social scientists have limited our use of the word “religion” to mean notions about god, but in terms of their function in modern society, ideas with different names are as powerful today, and in the same way, as the ancient religions used to be. The structural variants on the philosophy of Rousseau (Humanism, Fabianism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism) which deny god as god, replace theocracy and the church with other philosophically imposed power structures which look like apostate religion in that they also exert moral, social, political and economic control. Thus religionists of all stripes (whether theologically or philosophically self-defined) still dictate the meaning of personal, public, political, and economic “morality.” And the “morality” they accept is sometimes more a-moral than the oldfashioned Protestant “immorality” used to be.

Nephi’s statement ( 2 Ne. 28:1-18 ) is a classic, in that it describes so accurately the powers and corruption of apostate religion. It also serves as a warning. I suspect one of the greatest challenges to Mormonism — and I stress: Not to Mormonism on its the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve Apostle level, but on its bureaucratic sub-levels — as Mormonism becomes a world religion, will be to discover how to let its people remain free, and how not to use its powers of numbers, wealth, and prestege in the classic and perverse way that the powers of churches have almost always been used. [2 Ne. 28:1-18, 12 Apr 99, Dil Rust, ] In Mormon’s claim of being “a descendant of Nephi” (Mormon 1:5), which also applies to Moroni, Mormon is established as a representative of Nephi, just as Joseph Smith, likewise a direct blood descendant of a great prophet (Joseph the Patriarch), was a latter-day representative of Joseph. Both serve as second witnesses to the truths taught by their lineal ancestors. In the case of the Book of Mormon, Moroni can be twinned with his father, and in fact says that he finishes his father’s record and does so under his father’s direction.

2 Nephi 25:1, 5 — LeGrand Baker — Why Isaiah?

1 Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. Forbehold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews…..
5. Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah…(2 Nephi 25:1, 5).

When the Saviour came to America he commanded,

1   And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah. (3 Nephi 23:1)

And to that, Mormon added, “Search the prophecies of Isaiah. ( Mormon 8:23)

I would like to address the question, “Why Isaiah?” Why not Jeremiah, or Ezekiel. or Deuteronomy? Actually there is a very good answer to that question, and while I won’t attempt to do it justice in the short space I have to write in, I would like to at least give a brief overview of the answer.

The Prophet Joseph wrote, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly…” “Translated” works fine if one reads it to mean, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God so far as our version says the same thing as the original said.” But a more precise way of writing what Joseph probably meant would be, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is both transmitted, and translated correctly.” It is the “transmitted” part which I wish to discuss.

Bible scholars are forever arguing about which parts of the Bible were written when. For example, one prominent view is that much, if not all, of the five books of Moses were written after the Babylonian captivity. Most scholars believe that all of Deuteronomy was written just before the exile into Babylon.. Nephi tells us that the Books of Moses were included on the Brass Plates, so we know they couldn’t have been written after the Babylonian captivity. However, In some ways, the scholarly argument is quite sound. All one has to do is compare the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price with the beginning of Genesis is our Bible, to discover that someone has taken some enormous editorial liberties with Moses’ writings. One of the reasons scholars say that the Books of Moses were written after the Babylonian captivity is because some of those editorial changes bear the linguistic marks of that later period of Jewish history.

Let me explain. If I handed you a copy of a page from a book by Mark Twain, and on that page he had quoted a scripture, but hadn’t bothered to put quotation marks around it – and if you were not familiar with either that page of Twain’s writings or with the scripture – and if I asked you to circle the words which had been lifted from the Bible, you could easily do that. Even though both Mark Twain and the Bible quote are written in English, the language style is sufficiently different that you could readily tell which was which. A scholar can recognize those kinds of differences in Biblical Hebrew as well. Not everyone agrees on just what those stylistic shifts in the text mean, but scholars agree that they at least mean that much of the version of the Bible which has been preserved until our day, has been given a pretty through editing by people who lived many years after the original writers.

For example, most scholars believe that the history books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) are each compilations of at least two, and probably more original histories, and that the historians who compiled them had different motives and thus selected different things to include – and to exclude – in order to achieve their own purposes. Thus Kings and Chronicles, which describe the same time periods, focus on different stories and use the stories to make different points. These two histories (Kings and Chronicles) each end after the Babylonian captivity, so it would be a bit difficult to argue that they were written or compiled during a period before the Babylonian captivity. If that is correct it means that the entire first half of our version of the Old Testament was either written or severely edited after the Babylonian captivity. That fact (I presume it is a fact) is extremely interesting to Latter-day Saints, because by knowing the time of that writing or editing, we can deduce a number of significant things.

First, If our versions of the five Books of Moses were edited after the Babylonian captivity, the versions we have are significantly different from the versions which were contained on the Brass Plates. Consequently, the Book of Mormon references to the “Law of Moses” may refer to facts about the Law which are not transmitted in our Bible. The most obvious example of this is that the Book of Mormon prophets repeatedly say that the Law of Moses is about the Saviour, yet, apart from the idea of the sacrificial Lamb of Passover, we have difficulty discovering how that is so.

Second, The other history books ( Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) could not have been on the Brass Plates if it is true that they were written after Lehi left Jerusalem. But what might be on the Brass Plates is copies of the original manuscripts from which the information in our histories was taken.

By the way, that same logic, teaches a good deal more about the contents of the Brass Plates. For the same reason Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, part of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were written after Lehi left Jerusalem so were not included on the Brass Plates.

So, of the books in the Old Testament which we have, which MAY have been included on the Brass Plates were the writings of some of the “minor” prophets (Hosea [c. 740 BC], Joel [before 850 BC or as late as after the return], Amos [about 740 BC], Obadiah [c. 845 BC], Jonah [It is not known when this story was written.], Micah [unknown], Nahum [probably a contemporary of Lehi], Habakkuk [ probably a contemporary of Lehi], Zephaniah [another probable contemporary of Lehi].). There may also have been Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon. But the only ones we can be sure of (because they are either mentioned, quoted, or paraphrased in the Book of Mormon) are the Books of Moses, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and part of Jeremiah. There are also prophets which we do not have in our Old Testament, most notably Zenock and Zenos. We can also be sure that the Brass Plates contained some Israelite history, because both David and Solomon are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

When the angel described our Bible to Nephi, he described it this way:

23  The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13:23).

All that is relevant, but it still does not answer the question, “Why Isaiah.” The answer to that question will become obvious if we begin by eliminating the others, and ask, “Why not Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets?” The answer seems to be that these prophets wrote about specific events or circumstances, but not write so much about the doctrines and the theology. For example, in the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, Jeremiah tells his story, calls the Jews to repentance, and bemoans the loss of Jerusalem and its Temple. Ezekiel is a contemporary of Jeremiah and Lehi, but Ezekiel is already in exile in Babylon and is writing about the problems of his own time. The minor prophets also write about the problems of their own times. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets contain important prophecies about the Saviour and the return of Israel, but even though there is much truth their, their object is to write about other things besides the gospel, the temple, or the plan of salvation.

Why not the Books of Moses? Because much is missing from our five books of Moses. I’ve already mentioned Genesis, but there are other important examples also. The book of Leviticus, for instance, is the place where we go to find the particulars about the sacrifices and performances of the Law of Moses. But all Leviticus is, is an Aaronic priesthood handbook telling how and which sacrifices are to be performed when. It tells almost nothing about what the rest of the people do when those sacrifices are performed. It tells almost nothing of the other ceremonies connected with those sacrifices. Probably the most important example of that lack of information is the Leviticus description of the Feast of Tabernacles. It tells what animals are sacrifices and how, but in conjunction with those Aaronic Priesthood ordinances, the people were re-enacting the whole story of the plan of salvation. We have almost nothing in our versions of the books of Moses which even suggest such ceremonies were going on. (more about that below)

Why not the histories, Kings and Chronicles? Because they were written or compiled during the time of Jewish apostasy, and they reflect the doctrines of that apostasy. Before the Babylonian captivity the Israelite religion was polytheistic. They believed in Elohim, Jehovah, and a whole Council of minor gods. After the return from Babylon, they became monotheistic, worshiping only Jehovah, but not being sure about who or what he was. Much of the “problems” with the wrathful “Old Testament God” are due to the histories’ having been written during the time when Jews were not quite sure what God was. There are other doctrinal problems in the histories as well. One of the most important is the omission of the story of the plan of salvation as I mentioned in the preceding chapter.

Why not the Psalms? The Psalms are wonderful. They are the actual text of the dramatization of the plan of salvation. They may not be perfect, but many of them seem to have come down to us almost in tact. Their problem is their arrangement. One cannot read them in sequence and discover what they were originally about. Some scholars call the arrangement and headings of the Psalms “the first commentary on the Psalms.” These headings, along with the present arrangement were added after the Babylonian captivity, during the period of apostasy I have just described. Consequently, whatever one might have learned from reading the Psalms in their original order, is now almost entirely lost. For example, if our temple ceremony was much longer, and mostly sung in a whole series of separate songs, one would expect, if he read the words of those songs in their correct order, to discover a good part of the ceremony. But if the songs were all jumbled up, one just couldn’t find a story, and might even conclude there had never been a story in the first place. That would be especially true if the new arrangement of the songs was divided into groupings, with the implication that there was meaning in the groupings. That is the situation with the Psalms. It seems to be all there, but looking for it is like trying to make sense of a picture when all one has is the scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. A couple specific examples: At the conclusion of the ceremony the king was anointed “king.” The Psalm which was probably sung during that anointing ceremony is Psalm 2. So in our version, we find the song which was supposed to be sung at the conclusion of the drama, at the beginning of the hymn book. Another example. There is a scene in which one sees the Council in Heaven. Jehovah has just been anointed King of Israel, and now this scene shows the calling of the earthly king and queen. That Psalm would have been sung during one of the earliest scenes in the drama, but in our arrangement of the Psalms it is # 45, a third of the way into our present book. Psalm 82 also takes place in the Council, it is almost two thirds of the way into our Book of Psalms. So, in its present jumbled condition, the Book of Psalms is not the best place to look to find the doctrines of the gospel and of the plan of salvation.

That leaves Isaiah – and Isaiah is wonderful. It is evident from quotes in the Book of Mormon, that our version of Isaiah is transmitted to us in very good condition. It is full of the gospel, and the whole plan of salvation is there. There are prophecies of the Saviour, explanations of the atonement, examples of how to obtain individual salvation, discussions of the covenants made by the Father with his children, and an explanation of the entire plan of salvation as described in their ancient temple ceremonies.

Beginning with Isaiah 40 and continuing to the end (excluding the Cyrus chapters which were added later) the latter half of Isaiah is a commentary on the ancient Israelite temple ceremony which was glorified by the singing of the Psalms.

Why is Isaiah so difficult to understand? Because it is written in the context of the ancient temple. People who do not know the temple have no context into which they can put Isaiah’s writings, so they have to make up their own context. Since Isaiah uses some historical references to make his points, most scholars use those historical references as the context, and miss the point altogether.

Why did Nephi teach Isaiah without teaching about Jewish history? Because Isaiah is written in the language of the temple, so one can read and understand at least the latter half of Isaiah without knowing hardly anything at all about Jewish history.