Why does Jacob care about "wine and milk without money and without price"? 2 Nephi 9:50

Why does Jacob care about "wine and milk without money and without price"? 2 Nephi 9:50

Jacob, Nephi's younger brother, gives a powerful sermon about the Atonement of Jesus Christ. He implores his family to, "come...every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come buy and eat; yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price." This is a quote from Isaiah 55:1.

Boyd K. Packer and Weatherford T. Clayton referenced this verse from 2 Nephi in talks in General Conference. Clayton's was quite recent, in 2017.

Apparently, around 1990, there was a huge change in the way the church was run (cough cough this seems super relevant to my own life right now, nearly 30 years later). In January 1990, the church announced that activities and operation expenses of the local units were going to be paid from tithes and offerings, and Packer explained that, "It will not be possible to do all of the things we have been doing in the same way we have been doing them. It will bring an inevitable reduction in programs. That was intended." Basically - no more ridiculous roadshows. The promise was that while the change in budgets and assessments and fundraising would seem to be a temporal matter, "the effect of it will be spiritual."

He promises to families who are burdened with the cost of paying for a missionary. This change allowed it to be possible for ward members to anonymously help finance missions of people serving in their ward, using the bishop as an intermediary, and thus removing the problems that come with freeloading. Self-reliance is a huuuuuuge thing in my church.

Apparently, people at that time in the church felt like maybe we needed, "more impressive activities and more meetings, rather than fewer." But Packer assured church members that the budget change would set a better balance between the church and families.

Which is literally the exact same thing we are doing now.

Packer then urges people to spread word of the budget changes (I guess yeah, the 90's didn't have facebook or email so much, so this news would have mostly been spread by word of mouth in person or via the telephone). He tells them to remind them what Isaiah and Jacob quoting Isaiah said, that wine and milk without money and without price are available to everyone that thirsteth (and I guess, to those that are also hungry).

I can't help but be reminded of the story of the woman at the well in John 4:14-26. Jesus came to a well. There a Samaritan woman at the well - someone who would have been a pariah to Jews.

Jesus: "Give me a drink."

Woman: "Um...you're a Jew. Why are you asking me to give you a drink? Jews and Samaritans don't mix."

Jesus: "If you knew the gift of God, and who was asking you for a drink, you would have asked him for a drink instead, and he would have given you living water."

Woman: "But you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where are you going to get this living water? Do you think you're better than our ancestor, Jacob, who made this well for himself, his children, and his cattle?"

Jesus: "Anybody that drinks the water of this well will thirst again. But anybody who drinks the water that I have to give will never thirst, but the water will become a well inside of them, springing up to everlasting life."

Woman: "Sir, give me this water, to quench my thirst, and relieve me from drawing from the well."

Jesus: "Go get your husband."
Woman: "I don't have one."

Jesus: "That's right, you don't. You've had five husbands, and the man who you're currently living with is not your husband."

Woman: "Sir, I can tell that you can see/know things by the power of God. So, why is it that both of our ancestors worshiped here, and yet you Jews say that Jerusalem is the only place to worship?"

Jesus: "Someday worshiping won't happen here or in Jerusalem, actually. You don't know what you worship, and we Jews do - but someday all true believers will worship the Father, because the Father is looking and wanting them to worship him. God is a spirit, and true worshippers must worship in both spirit and truth."

Woman: "I know that the Messiah, the anointed one, will come, and when he does, he will tell us all things."

Jesus: "I am he."

This is one of my absolute favorite stories in the New Testament. I love it so much, I painted it and the painting is on the wall in my front room.

I can relate to this woman.

And I feel like it's not a coincidence that Jesus is using this metaphor that was also found in the Old Testament, of a free thirst-quenching liquid.

When Clayton quotes this verse, he says simply, "There is so much more to our existence than just what happens between birth and death. I invite you to come and follow Christ."

Isaiah 55:1 is referenced an impressive 39 times, also sometimes recently, by the following:

Dieter F. Uchtdorf - 2012
Jeffrey R. Holland - 2012
George A. Smith
Orson F. Whitney
Moses Thatcher
Orson Pratt
Erastus Snow
Wilford Woodruff
Daniel H. Wells
Charles C. Rich
Brigham Young
George Q. Cannon
Daniel H. Wells
John Young

Uchtdorf is talking during the 2012 priesthood session and says:

The priesthood of Almighty God is available to worthy men wherever they may be—no matter their ancestry, no matter how humble their circumstances, in the nearest or farthest reaches of the globe. It is available without money or any worldly price. To paraphrase the ancient prophet Isaiah, everyone who is thirsty can come to the waters, and no money is required to come and eat!

I understand this to mean that the priesthood power is available to me, and all worthy women, too - though we do not hold or exercise it in quite the same way because hey, our role and contribution to the plan of humankind really is different from that of men. I certainly felt longings to participate in scouting activities, but I can sincerely say I've never felt feelings of exclusion from the priesthood power - I'm not ordained to an office in the priesthood, but I have the same access to the power itself. Also, I'm quite confident women will hold specific priesthood offices later. But I also know some women don't feel the same way as I do, and find this to be a huge frustration.

When I have issues or questions about the way the church works, or something that is in the scriptures or church history, I try to emulate that Samaritan woman. She had clearly thought about things before this conversation with Jesus. She was also perceptive to subtle signals he was sending in the way he asked questions. She was also apparently very eager and willing to believe him.

Jesus promised that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. I love this promise, because it describes how I feel quite often.

Answer:
Jacob was quoting Isaiah. He loved the words of Isaiah. He related to them. He also had a firm testimony that Jesus Christ could be the ultimate source for filling the empty pieces of his soul. He testified that the answers and fulfillment would be diverse by not just limiting the thirst quenching liquid to water, but also including wine and milk. He testified that they would be free - and I think saying they were without price also implies that the worth of the gospel of Jesus Christ is beyond human quantification.

Why should the fear of the Lord "smite" thee? 2 Nephi 12:10

Why should the fear of the Lord "smite" thee? 2 Nephi 12:10

This chapter is comparable to Isaiah 2. Nephi is quoting Jacob who is quoting Isaiah 2.

In this chapter, the last days are described in some detail. He paints a picture of what it will be like right before the second coming of Jesus Christ.

"O ye wicked ones, enter in to the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for the fear of the Lord and the glory of his majesty shall smite thee."

This is a little bit clearer than Isaiah 2 because it specifies that the addressee is "ye wicked ones" and what exactly the fear of the Lord is going to do.

It's going to smite.

In vernacular, it could be rephrased like this:

"Hey, all you wicked people, you should go hide in a cave or under the ground because the fear of the Lord and the glory of his majesty is going to get you!"

Except, get is the wrong word.

As usual, this experience is a big giant juggling of semantics. So, what better tool to juggle word meanings than corpus linguistics!?

I'm using this wordcruncher tool (which I don't especially love, I have to say). I discovered that the word "smite" occurs this many times:

OT : 432 
NT : 32
BoM : 139
D&C : 20
PGP : 4

I looked at these occurrences of the word "smite" in Isaiah. Then I looked one of them up in Isaiah in a Hebrew language source (I am not quite sure if this is a great source, but it looked okay).

Here's Isaiah 9:12 (it is 9:13 in the KJV)

12 Yet the people turneth not unto Him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts. {S}

{יב  וְהָעָם לֹא-שָׁב, עַד-הַמַּכֵּהוּ; וְאֶת-יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, לֹא דָרָשׁוּ.  {ס

I chucked the Hebrew into google translate to figure out which word is "smite."

I think this is smite:
הַמַּכֵּהוּ

But I think it is probably like Arabic (and Czech) - there's a word for it that escapes me at the moment - where the word gets extra stuff like pronouns attached to it, but remains as one single word.

I am guessing this is actually "smite":
הַמַּכֵּה

I tried to look it up in a Hebrew corpus using a really cool corpus exploration tool called Sketch Engine but the beta version I am testing out has some errors with reading Hebrew, it seems. It didn't work.

Hmm.

When I play around with these letter combinations on google translate, adding or removing front or end letters, I get this root:

מַּכֵּה

I am guessing this is how Hebrew works - I guess it is probably like Arabic, where words are made up of mostly consonants that form a root, and then little vowels are added above and below a word to change what part of speech they are, how they function, etc. Know the root, unlock deeper layers of meaning - for all kinds of things. It's similar in all languages, honestly, but it's markedly like this in Arabic. Like, it's very, very easy to start guessing what a word will be if you know the root. Usually the root is three consonants or long vowels.

I guess if this really is the Hebrew root for this word, synonyms (according to google translate, so...) are:

blow, hit, stroke, plague, and...a machete. Haha.

Sometimes I think this word has come to mean something like "kill." When I look it up on an online dictionary, the definition is always closer to "hit" - "strike with a firm blow", "defeat or conquer (a people or land)", "(especially a disease) attack or affect severely."

The "fear of the Lord" is not the same as fear born out of anxiety and worry - synonyms for it could be dread, honor, obedience, respect, reverence, and even worship.

Answer:
In the last days, when all people will see and be forced to admit that God is real, his promises are real, the scriptures are true, the prophets were right - and you were wrong - this realization and knowledge will feel like being hit with something very powerful, something unavoidable. 

I say "you" but I should have said "we." It is explicitly stated that "the lofty looks of man" and "the haughtiness of men" shall be humbled and bowed down. I guess that includes me, unfortunately. I will continue to try to divest myself of my pride, so maybe that blow won't be so painful.

Does Nephi believe that Isaiah, Nephi, and Jacob were the three witnesses of Isaiah's words? 2 Nephi 11:3

Does Nephi believe that Isaiah, Nephi, and Jacob were the three witnesses of Isaiah's words? 2 Nephi 11:3

Answer:
Yes.

When Nephi says he saw his Redeemer as Isaiah and Jacob saw him, what did he mean? 2 Nephi 11:2

When Nephi says he saw his Redeemer as Isaiah and Jacob saw him, what did he mean? 2 Nephi 11:2

Nephi is about to quote the words of Isaiah, whose words he cherishes. He explains that the reason why he loves the words of Isaiah is because he likens (points out the resemblance of something, compares, equates, sees a parallel, correlates, matches, draws an analogy) Isaiah's words to his people. Nephi wants to send Isaiah's words to all of his children (and grandchildren, etc. I guess) because Isaiah saw the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the way that Nephi saw him. And the way that Jacob saw him, too.

I think this was not a night vision or a dream. I think Isaiah really did see Jesus Christ while in the temple, as well as these super strange alien things called seraphim, with six wings.

Earlier I wondered if Nephi was actually physically present or if it were a thing that happened in his mind in 1 Nephi 11. My answer was that I don't know.

But if I think that Isaiah literally saw Jesus Christ in the temple, then that suggests that Nephi also literally was taken away to an exceedingly high mountain, where he literally saw an angel, and then was literally taken to the future to see and be a witness of the Savior's birth in Bethlehem.

Implications: time travel could be a real thing. Whoaah.

Answer: I think it's possible that Nephi really did see Jesus Christ - and maybe more often than just in this vision in 1 Nephi 11. I guess it's not super important for us to definitely know for these reasons:

1. The way we know Nephi (and Isaiah, and Jacob) is through writing
2. Writing always feels a level removed from the actual experience it is describing.
3. The words and witness these men give of Jesus Christ is not significantly different if it was a mind-experience or a physical-experience. I mean, it would take just about the equal amount of faith to believe either
4. The important part of these visions is the message that Jesus Christ hold power to purify, heal, and fill us with joy. The angel describes the love of God to Nephi as "the most desirable above all things." Isaiah describes the angel as taking effort to descend to his level, physically alter him, and then say, "thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged." 

I know that Jesus Christ has this power. I did not see these miraculous visions. My witness is not with my physical eyes. It is with my heart and my mind. I know that we can draw upon the Savior's strengthening and healing power every day of our lives by approaching him in sincere prayer. 

I also know that it does not take a lot of time. Turning your heart to the Savior is not some kind of gargantuan effort that requires years of practice before getting right, especially if you have lived your whole life believing that it's all lies and nonsense. I know that Jesus Christ is basically pleading with us, wanting us to turn our hearts to him, wanting us to allow him to fix our pain. Because of the atonement, he really knows all of our unique, individual pain and sorrow. This gives him the power to fix them. When we metaphorically lay our pride and unbelief on an imaginary altar, he will immediately bless us for it. 

I often wish that I had a way to compel people I care about to do just this. 

There is no substitute for the kind of love and understanding that can come from this source. It is real, and I know it is real because it is my own experience - some kind of Cartesian logic statement should be inserted here. Someday I will die and be resurrected, and the experience of knowing God will move from the intellectual and emotional space in my mind and heart to a physical one - I will get the opportunity to see God with my own eyes, and feel his hands with my own hands. Until then, one of the best ways I know of to come to know God is through earnestly searching the scriptures and striving to live well. 

Whose voice cried? 2 Nephi 16:4

Whose voice cried? 2 Nephi 16:4

Nephi's younger brother Jacob is quoting Isaiah in this chapter. It is comparable to Isaiah 6.

I really, really love the words of Isaiah.

Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a throne "in the year that king Uzziah died" - which is probably sometime around 740/739 BC from that really valid and useful source known as Wikipedia, which here is quoting some guy named Edwin R. Thiele who I don't really want to spend a lot of time figuring out whether or not I think he's a valid source because honestly, it doesn't really matter much to me exactly what year this thing happened - a really long time ago.

Isaiah describes what he sees. It was something like this, I guess:

The Lord was sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, his robes(?) filling the temple.

Above (the robes? the temple?) were seraphim - multiple heavenly beings that, by all accounts, sound super alien and strange: they each have six wings. I don't know how many there were.

One seraphim says to the other: "holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory."

The door posts moved when he (the seraphim) cried, and the entire place was full of smoke.

Then Isaiah freaks out and basically says, "crap, I suck. I am totally unworthy to see any of this." Specifically, he mentions that his mouth is unclean.

Then one of the seraphim takes a hot coal from the altar and puts it on Isaiah's mouth, purifying him.

Obviously, there's a lot of symbolism here that is difficult to understand through the veil of modern times and culture. Like, a whole lot. For example, when I think of a live coal, I don't think of purification. I think of intense, horrible pain and the branding of slaves and animals. And when I think of smoke, I don't think of the presence of God or prayers ascending to reach God. I think of danger from fire and how my smoke alarm is going to go off at any second.

I think Isaiah literally saw this, which is...well, it's weird, to say the least. I would have to really think and study a lot more to come closer to understanding what any of it means.

Answer:

It was the voice of one of the seraphim standing above the Lord (or his robes, or his train) in the temple who cried.

The Upside Down of Wikipedia

Sex.

A very interesting topic.

I am interested in the science of sex - but the *history* of sex is truly an endless well of fascination to me.

How did birth control work in Ancient Egypt? What was the typical frequency of intercourse between married people in Victorian England? What is the statistical likelihood that my Czech Catholic ancestors were virgins when they married? Is it true that female orgasm is a 20th century discovery (#pffffffft)? What were medieval sexual norms? What did x civilization believe about how the science of conception worked? Most especially: *how do we know this?*

How do you learn about this?

Do you go to the library and find books? Well, most local libraries have a pretty limited selection. This is the kind of book that I would never order on interlibrary loan because of the human interaction with the librarian that would have to take place. I talk. How could I ever talk with anyone besides my spouse about "The History of Scientific Discoveries about Human Sexuality"? I would  not be capable of even meeting the librarian's eye. So that's out.

Do you go online to find books? One option I've tried: use Amazon as a search engine. But the next question is important: how do I know if my search is giving me satisfactory results? The way I decide which items to purchase from Amazon is usually by reading reviews - between the lines. I usually only read the 3-4 star reviews because I don't trust either the flattering praise or disgruntled insults. And how many times have I bought an item - especially books! - in spite of negative reviews?

So, sex. An interesting topic very interwined with emotions and spirituality. I have discovered that as curious about the sex lives of other people as I may be, I can't tolerate learning about the specific sexuality - specific sexual thoughts, sexual feelings, sexual acts, obviously sexual images (!!) - of other specific people. It is damaging to my spirit to do so. I avoid such media. Even conversations with groups of my peers that turn to subjects like, "what kind of birth control do you use?" make me personally bite my lip until it bleeds, or else I just walk away. I can't ever un-know or un-remember the details. I can't un-imagine what they tell me. I see my friends' husbands in church the next day and have to try very hard to fill my thoughts with other thoughts and mental images than what their wives described.

Maybe my imagination is too vivid.

Anyway, what I really want to know about sex is *not* specific to individual people. Since Amazon reviews are created by humans who very often share too much about their own personal feelings and experiences, they are not a tolerable source of information (for me) about deciding which books are a good source about sex. #learnedthisthehardway

Typically, the most satisfying print sources I've found for the history of sex I stumbled upon completely by accident as part of a broader research quest about the history of x. I'll never forget the book I read about what the inside of a Victorian English home looked like. The chapter about bedrooms was super interesting because it had all kinds of concrete evidence for why human sexuality at that time in that place probably involved/looked like/was like x. I didn't check the book out with the intent to learn about that. It was the most interesting thing of all, second only to reading about the reality of air pollution in their world and the etymology of "spring cleaning" (and that only because it was less speculation and more believable.)

I once checked out a book that was a collection of mostly extremely dry, snooty, self-congratulatory, pedantic, incomprehensible scholarly essays about the history of the Czech lands. One of them was totally different from all the others. It was an analysis of a legal court case from Bohemia of the 1400's, complete with a translation of the transcription of the original document. The case itself was about a child rape by a nobleman. It was horribly sad to read about. He got in big trouble. It also taught me more about views on sexuality in that time and that place than any other thing I have ever read before or since.

Too bad 95% of books about Czech history are not written in English.

[This is why I am learning Czech, by the way. It's the only solution to that problem.]

In summary: books as a source for learning what I want to know about sex are difficult (though not utterly impossible) to find and they're limited to the library and online booksellers, with the most success coming from accidentally stumbling on snippets while reading about something more generally related.

It's a bad idea to turn to Google for topics about sex. Here's why:
- I don't trust that the search results will be based on relevance more than popularity
- porn is popular
- porn is a plague to be avoided at all costs, including limiting myself from learning what I'm curious about
- I don't want to be targeted with ads about sex

Why not search for sex on Wikipedia?

I have done so in the past, for example about birth control in Ancient Egypt or Victorian views on Female Sexuality.

I recognized that it was a bad source for this topic for these reasons:
- the articles I read were poorly written, as they often are. Writing clear, grammatically correct sentences that make sense and are on the reader's level - not too much over it, not too much under it - this is a learned skill. When an article is piecemeal, written by volunteers over time who only contributed small sections and did not craft the overall piece, they almost inevitably end up like this. This is the reality of what Wikipedia looks like today for most articles.
- the articles I read were not believable. The sources they chose were old. The information itself had me ask, "how do you know that?"
- and mostly: I immediately perceived a glaring male bias. I could not imagine that a woman would write about this topic in the callous, ignorant way that it was written. You'll have to just take my word for it, I guess, because I don't remember exactly what page it was or what was said (and it's probably not the same today - this must have been 6+ years ago). I remember I was in Katy. I remember what room I was in when I was reading about this on my phone. I vividly remember thinking, "this is a load of crap!" and deciding that I was never again going to search for answers to my questions about sex on Wikipedia.

Anyway, what I want to learn is original research, and Wikipedia is a poor source for that. It's a place for people to cite other people's research. There's danger in citing your own - you are biased. Wikipedia strives for neutrality.

I've used Wikipedia since...forever. I obviously know the tone that it strives for (and often misses). I know that it is not meant as a source for deep exploration of topics - it's more like the diving board into the pool of deeper research. It's a starting point, a source of sources. Everything should be taken with a bucket of salt. I have actually looked at the references to books and articles cited on Wikipedia and sought them out directly. Some now adorn bookshelves in my house somewhere.

What shocked me was not to learn that this is how Wikipedia works; I've always known this. It was, however, shocking to really see it and experience it first-hand.

My experience:

Decide to edit x topic because I know about it.
I don't actually remember how I know what I know. Therefore: failure to cite my sources correctly. It just seemed obvious.
My edits removed because they lacked citations or looked "spammy."
Intense, overwhelming anger. Livid.
Find sources to "prove" what I already know.
Re-add my edits.
Recognize I am probably not adding sources correctly and so they will be thrown out.
Anger. My own knowledge is meaningless here unless it was published in a peer-reviewed journal of medicine.
Anger. I never will be published there.
Anger. How many people who are published there have breastfed five infants? How many have experienced tandem breastfeeding? How many have been pregnant while breastfeeding? Hypothesis: a statistically insignificant number.
Anger. Worries that this is not a safe space for me as a woman.
Strange nightmares. You probably laugh that the white Wikipedia screenwith lots of blue links could possibly be the stuff of nightmares. But for the past several nights I have woken up sweating, my voice calling out for help, the image of editing something abstract in my mind, the feeling of intense terror overwhelming my emotions. It persists after the dream itself fades.

Yeah, it's the vivid imagination problem again.

I have not and probably will not muster up the courage to check what happened to those edits I made, at least not for a very, very long time.

Becoming a Wikipedia editor is like walking through an alternative universe. Every Wikipedia page has a meta-discussion going on. I had only ever looked at it one single time in my life previously, in 2015, to make a very tiny comment about my own theory on something. It was an original theory from my original research, so it didn't really belong on the front end. But I thought it was worthy enough to belong on the back end. It was difficult for me to discover how to make that tiny comment. I didn't continue to pursue exploring that world.

That is the entire world of Wikipedia editing.

It's like this: every Wikipedia page is a doorway. You can open the doorway in the normal way and walk through it to a world of knowledge and information. It's vibrant, lush, colorful, wonderful! It might need a little bit of gardening, to weed the superfluous commas and ytpos, but it's really not a scary place.

OR...

You can flip the doorway and then open it backwards and enter a dystopian world of people (mostly men) fighting about what is and isn't worthy of belonging on the other side. If this were Stranger Things, it would be the Upside Down. This place is mostly black and white and so many shades of gray - and tracks made by people so confident and cocky and sure that they know everything about x on the other side, and that their view is the only one that matters or is valid. The landscape is nasty courier font and you're always tripping over HTML tags. If you deign to mention that one reason you know x is from your own 10k+ hours of life experience with x, you're discredited as trying to contribute "original research." It feels like the only people who win this game are the ones who read the most *volume.*

But as was previously examined, reading isn't always the way to learn about the world. It's certainly no substitute to learning about the actual experience of the act of sex itself!

It wasn't new knowledge for me. It was a very poignantly new feeling, though. It was like going from mild hesitation and distrust in everything I read on Wikipedia to major apprehension and disbelief in everything written everywhere about anything at any time by anyone. Faith in knowledge of humanity, crumbling and blowing away in the wind.

Of course that'd be nightmarish to someone who literally idealizes the printed word and longs more than almost anything else to contribute to the great libraries of the world's knowledge.

But that's just feelings for you. Dramatic. Overstated. Full of senseless worries. The actual mission of Wikipedia is wonderful. The flaws in execution are compelling reasons for me to contribute *more*, not run away from it entirely (though I have noticed that my Wikipedia usage since this experience has significantly decreased. I have purposefully temporarily avoided clicking on search results that would take me there - and it's been about 15x in the last three days).

I only wish that I had been smart enough to have my first real experience with Wikipedia editing be for me to walk through an obscure door on Czech Wikipedia into a teeny tiny world, gather some baskets of information there, walk back down the hall, open a wholly new door in English Wikipedia, and there plant the seeds from my basket. I should have realized that a topic like breastfeeding would have a particularly nasty Upside Down.

It's a weird world when I can learn more about breastfeeding by sitting in a quiet place with a baby on my lap than by perusing the towering libraries of all the world's information.

But I think the problem is not that the information about breastfeeding (or sex) doesn't exist in those libraries. The problem is being able to find it.

How much of an understanding of the premortal existence did Lehi have? 2 Nephi 2:16

How much of an understanding of the premortal existence did Lehi have? 2 Nephi 2:16

Lehi is talking to his children before he dies. He is preaching about the purpose of life and the plan of salvation. He wants his children to understand that agency was a necessary aspect of the plan.

Lehi testifies that God created all things in the heaven and the earth. He testifies that opposition had to exist, good and evil had to exist. He testifies that mankind had to be given the option to choose between good and evil. This is called agency and it is a foundational doctrine of the restored Church on the earth today.

In this verse, Lehi says: "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

It occurred to me as I read this verse that Lehi knew an awful lot about the plan of salvation. Where did he gain this knowledge?

This verse reminded me of the temple endowment ceremony - well, at least, the previous version of the endowment ceremony. I heard that around the first of January the ceremony was changed slightly. It will be so interesting to go to the temple and learn how, but it is difficult to arrange with sick children, snowstorms, and unreliable vehicles.

Lehi could have gained his knowledge from the brass plates which Nephi took from Laban. We already know that there are Old Testament prophets like Zenos and Zenock whose original prophecies have been lost to time; why not other writings by other ancient prophets that were also lost, but which also testified of the premortal existence and the council in heaven?

One of the most interesting books of scripture that we have is the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. This is a translation of a book that used to be part of the Old Testament writings of Moses. It reads extremely plainly about the plan of salvation, for example in Moses 4. The entire book of Moses reminds me of the temple endowment ceremony as well. If you are interested in learning about Latter-day Saint temple rituals, I'm sure you could just go to YouTube or some place like Wikipedia or something to find the entire text and perhaps the old (outdated) video, but please do not do that. It is highly offensive and disrespectful and would cause me great distress and feelings of sadness. Instead, just read the book of Moses. It's not long and it's very interesting, especially when compared to the first part of Genesis.

Answer:
I don't know, but if I study more, I might find out.

I can carefully study what Lehi understood and compare it to the writings of the Old Testament and the writings of the Pearl of Great Price, so that perhaps I can determine whether or not the Brass Plates also contained the lost book of Moses or other lost scripture that we don't have in the Old Testament that have information about the premortal existence.

By the way, some churches have books of scripture which are not in our canon, for example the book of the Maccabees which is apparently "a historical document of the highest importance." Certainly this and other apocryphal writings are good deal more useful to read than like, the Song of Solomon #OldTestamentporn.

I'm personally totally okay with the idea that scriptures, like any other physical, human-made writing, is copied, disseminated, misinterpreted, concealed, contaminated by any other number of human-created imperfections - and sometimes even lost or destroyed. I also believe that ancient scripture can be discovered, revealed, retranslated, and restored.

I understand that this is not a belief that I share with all Christians, and that is also okay.

I personally don't worship the Bible itself. I worship the God of the Bible. As I am amazed to continually discover through highlighting the words in both the Old and New Testaments (this week I was reading some really, um, pleasant chapters in Deuteronomy as well as Matthew 1 and Luke 1), that is Jesus Christ, his Father, and the Holy Ghost. I really love them.